jr 


f^Yict/&rma/ 


r 


cyV.^yftctr^e^  c/^YiAe^/2^i 


PATROLOGY 

THE  LIVES  AND  WORKS  OF  THE 
FATHERS  OF  THE  CHURCH. 


rrt-J^- 


PATROLOGY 

THE  LIVES  AND  WORKS  OF  THE 
FATHERS  OF  THE  CHURCH 


BY 


OTTO  BARDENHEWER,  D.  D.,  PH.  D. 

PROFESSOR   OF  THEOLOGY  IN  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  MUNICH 


TRANSLATED  FROM  THE  SECOND  EDITION 


BY 


THOMAS  J.  SHAHAN,  D.  D. 

PROFESSOR   OF    CHURCH   HISTORY  IN   THE   CATHOLIC   UNIVERSITY   OF  AMERICA 


WITH  THE  APPROBATION  AND  RECOMMENDATION  OF  THEIR  LORDSHIPS  THE 

ARCHBISHOPS  AND  BISHOPS  OF  COVINGTON,  FREIBURG,  MILWAUKEE, 

OGDENSBURG,  ST.  LOUIS,  SIOUX  FALLS  AND  SPRINGFIELD 


FREIBURG  IM  BREISGAU  and  ST.  LOUIS,  MO.     1908 
B.    HERDER 

PUBLISHER  TO  THE  HOLY  APOSTOLIC  SEE 
BERLIN,  KARLSRUHE,  MUNICH,  STRASSBURG,  VIENNA 


1533 


Imprimatur. 

Friburgi  Brisgoviae,  die  i  Maii  1908. 

4:  Thomas,  Archiepps. 

HENRY  MORSE  STCPHEti£ 


ALL  RIGHTS  RESERVED. 


B.  Herder,  Freiburg  im  Breisgau  (Germany). 


APPROBATIONS. 

Milwaukee,  Wis.,  Jan.  10.,  1907. 

My  dear  Dr.  Shahan, 

Allow  me  to  congratulate  you  upon  the  happy  thought  of  giving  us  an 
English  translation  of  Dr.  Bardenhewer1  s  excellent  Manual  of  Patrology. 
You  know  that  I  have  been  long  wishing  for  just  such  a  book  which  is  a 
real  desideratum  for  educated  Catholic  Americans,  especially  the  clergy 
and  our  candidates  for  the  priesthood.  Protestantism,  Anglican  and  German, 
is  trying  to  find  in  the  primitive  Church  the  historic  foundation  for  its 
sectarian  tenets,  while  Rationalism  seeks  in  the  early  Christian  writings  for 
weapons  with  which  to  attack  the  credibility  of  the  Gospels  and  the  apo- 
stolicity  of  Catholic  Dogma.  How  can  the  Catholic  student  successfully 
meet  the  enemies  of  the  Church  if  he  has  no  more  knowledge  of  the 
Fathers  and  Doctors  of  the 'Church,  those  early  authentic  custodians  and 
exponents  of  the  Depositum  fidei ,  than  what  he  has  gathered  from  a  few 
disjointed  texts  or  patristic  quotations  in  a  Manual  of  Dogmatic  Theology, 
or  from  the  short  sketches  of  the  lives  and  writings  of  the  Fathers  found 
in  a  Manual  of  Church  History? 

Yet,  this  is  only  what  may  be  called  the  apologetic  view  of  the  study 
of  the  Fathers,  suggested  by  the  contemporary  struggle  of  the  Church 
defending  her  claim  to  be  the  original  Church  of  Christ.  There  are  many 
other  valuable  advantages  of  thorough  patristic  studies.  A  close  acquaint- 
ance with  the  Fathers  of  the  Church  will  furnish  those  who  «search  the 
Scriptures»  with  a  fuller  and  clearer  understanding  of  the  manifold  and 
often  hidden  meaning  of  Holy  Writ.  It  will  provide  the  Christian  teacher, 
called  to  preach  the  word,  with  an  inexhaustible  supply  of  solid  and  at- 
tractive material.  To  the  student  of  Church  History,  it  will  furnish  a  better 
and  more  correct  insight  into  the  true  causes  and  character  of  events  by 
throwing  a  wonderful  light  upon  many  questions  of  early  Church  dis- 
cipline and  law.  Nor  shall  we  overlook  the  precious  gems  of  poetry  and 
oratory,  of  narrative  and  description,  found  in  early  Christian  literature, 
which  compare  quite  favorably  with  the  jewels  of  the  pagan  classics. 

Dr.  Bardenhewer 's  Manual  is  an  excellent  key  to  the  rich  and  varied 
literature  of  the  «Beginnings  of  Christianity»  of  which  you  have  given  us 
such  interesting  accounts.     By  your  translation  you  have  placed  that  key 

510212 


in  our  hands.  It  is  now  the  duty  of  priest  and  seminarian  to  open  the 
door  to  the  treasury  of  our  early  classics.  May  the  «Manual»  have  all  the 
success  that  it  so  richly  deserves! 

Yours  very  sincerely  in  Christo, 

4^  S.  G.  Messmer, 

Archbishop  of  Milwaukee. 

St.  Louis,  Mo.,  Jan.,  20.,  1907. 

My  dear  Dr.  Shahan, 

I  wish  to  congratulate  you  on  the  appearance  of  your  translation  of 
Bardenhewer' s  Patrology.  I  have  heard  much  of  the  original,  and  am 
sure  that  in  your  hands  it  has  lost  none  of  its  value.  I  bespeak  for  it  a 
large  circulation  and  shall  take  pleasure  in  commending  it  when  oc- 
casion offers. 

With  best  wishes,  I  am 

Sincerely  yours  in  Christo, 

$t  John  J.  Glennon, 

Archbishop  of  St.  Louis. 


Springfield,  Mass.,  Jan.  15.,  1907. 

My  dear  Dr.  Shahan, 

The  appearance  of  Bardenhewer 's  Patrology  in  an  English  translation 
will  elicit  a  scholar's  welcome  from  all  professors  and  students  of  Patristic 
Theology  and  Church  History. 

The  excellency  of  the  work  in  the  original,  and  the  well  known  fitness 
of  the  translator  make  our  approval  and  recommendation  an  easy  and 
willing  evidence  of  our  pleasure  and  satisfaction  in  its  publication. 

It  should  easily  find  space  upon  the  library  shelf  of  every  seminarist 
and  every  priest. 

f  Thomas  D.  Beaven, 

Bishop  of  Springfield. 

Sioux  Falls,  S.  D.,  Jan.  12.,  1907. 

My  dear  Doctor, 

I  rejoice  to  learn  that  you  have  translated  into  English  Bardenhewer 's 
«The  Lives  and  Works  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church»,  and  that  Herder 
will  publish  the  translation  within  the  coming  year.  This  is  the  best 
Manual  of  Patrology  that  I  know  \  it  will  be  a  boon  to  our  seminaries  and 
our  priests.     In    these  days,   when  the  historical    aspect  of  Theology,    its 


development  and  evolution,  are  becoming  as  prominent  and  necessary  as 
the  Scholastic  exposition  of  revelation,  our  seminarians  and  priests  ought 
to  have  in  hand  the  very  best  that  has  been  done  on  the  lives  and  works 
of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church,  since  they  are  the  exponents  and  witnesses 
of  the  growth  of  theology. 

I  remain,  dear  Doctor, 

Fraternally  yours, 

f  Thomas  O' Gorman, 

Bishop  of  Sioux  Falls. 

Covington,  Ky.,  Jan.  15.,  1907. 
My  dear  Dr.  Shahan, 

The  clergy  of  America  ought  to  be  deeply  grateful  to  you  for  the 
translation  of  Dr.  Bardenhewer 's  Manual  of  Patrology.  The  lives  and 
works  of  the  Fathers  are  not  sufficiently  known  amongst  us.  Whilst  few 
priests  have  the  leisure  to  study  them  thoroughly,  they  should  be  ac- 
quainted in  a  general  way  with  the  teachings  of  the  Fathers  of  the 
Church.  They  are  the  fountain  heads  of  Tradition,  the  keys  to  the  under- 
standing of  the  dogmas  of  the  Faith;  they  supply  the  most  effectual 
armory  in  defence  of  Christian  truth  which  the  Catholic  Church  alone  has 
kept  in  its  apostolic  purity  of  doctrine. 

Hoping  that  both  yourself  and  your  publication  will  receive  adequate 
recognition  of  your  labors, 

Devotedly  yours  in  Christo, 

f  Camillus  P.  Maes, 

Bishop  of  Covington. 

Ogdensburg,  N.  Y.,  Jan.  20.,  1907. 
My  dear  Dr.  Shahan, 

The  reading  public  of  America  is  deeply  indebted  to  you  for  under- 
taking to  present  to  it  in  an  English  dress  the  great  work  of  Dr.  Barden- 
hewer on  the  Lives  and  Works  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church.  A  Patro- 
logy of  that  thoroughness  was  still  a  want  among  us.  Hereafter  no  one 
will  be  excusable  for  misreading  or  misquoting  those  indispensable  sources 
of  the  history  of  religion.  You  have  my  best  wishes  for  a  wide  diffusion 
of  your  translation. 

Faithfully  yours  in  J.  C, 

f  H.  Gabriels, 

Bishop  of  Ogdensburg. 


PREFACE  TO  THE  FIRST  GERMAN  EDITION. 


In  the  year  1883,  I  was  requested  by  the  publisher  Herder 
to  undertake  a  new  edition  of  J.  Alzogs  Manual  of  Patrology 
(3.  ed.,  Freiburg  i.  Br.,  1876).  External  circumstances  prevented  me 
from  accepting  this  flattering  offer  at  once ;  the  new  sphere  of  labor 
to  which  I  was  called  claimed  for  a  long  time  nearly  all  my  leisure 
and  strength.  The  publisher  entrusted  to  another  the  preparation 
of  an  improved  edition  of  Alzog  (Freiburg,  1888).  On  the  other 
hand,  as  soon  as  circumstances  permitted,  I  undertook  the  prepara- 
tion of  an  entirely  new  work. 

This  work,  which  I  now  offer  to  the  public,  undertakes  to  present 
in  a  very  concise  and  comprehensive  manner  the  actual  condition 
of  patrological  knowledge  and  research.  It  also  aims,  through  its 
bibliographical  paragraphs,  to  interest  and  guide  a  larger  number  of 
students  in  the  investigation  of  special  problems.  It  has  been  my 
purpose  to  quote  from  the  earlier  patrological  literature  only  what 
seems  most  important,  and  similarly,  to  omit  nothing  that  is  impor- 
tant among  the  numerous  later  researches.  As  the  subject-matter  is 
very  extensive,  I  have  found  it  necessary  to  confine  myself  often  to 
mere  indications'  and  suggestions,  to  omit  too  close  specific  discussion, 
and  to  leave  aside  what  seemed  of  minor  value.  The  nature  of  the 
work  seemed  also  to  impose  a  mere  reference  apropos  of  countless 
disputed  points  and  questions.  At  some  later  time,  I  hope,  God 
willing,  to  follow  up  this  outline  with  a  more  thorough  investigation 
of  the  entire  field  of  patrology. 

My  colleague,  Dr.  C.  Weyman,  kindly  undertook  to  share  with 
me  the  labor  of  correcting  the  proofs  of  this  work.  I  find  it  dif- 
ficult to  decide  whether  I  owe  more  to  the  patience  and  accuracy  of 
my  friend  in  the  revision  of  the  printed  pages,  or  to  the  solid  eru- 
dition of  the  savant   in   his  concern  for   the  correctness  of  the  text. 

Munich,  September,   1894. 

The  Author 


X  PREFACE    TO    THE    SECOND    GERMAN    EDITION. 

PREFACE  TO  THE  SECOND  GERMAN  EDITION. 

The  first  edition  of  this  book  met  with  a  very  kindly  reception. 
It  was  judged  worthy  by  Godet  and  Verschaffet  of  being  put  into 
French  \  and  by  Angelo  Mercati  of  translation  into  Italian 2.  I  was 
less  pleased ,  personally ,  with  the  result  of  my  labors.  Had  time 
and  strength  sufficed,  I  would  have  undertaken  the  preparation  of 
an  entirely  new  book.  The  first  third  of  the  book,  the  outline  of 
the  Ante-Nicene  literature,  was  its  weakest  part;  it  appears  now  in 
an  entirely  new,  and  I  hope  more  satisfactory  presentation.  This  sec- 
tion of  the  work  has  caused  a  quite  disproportionate  amount  of  labor 
on  my  part,  owing  to  the  fact  that  I  was  preparing  the  same  material 
in  two  forms:  the  first  demanded  a  lengthy  and  exhaustive  research 
for  the  comprehensive  History  of  early  ecclesiastical  literature  an- 
nounced in  the  preface  to  the  first  edition,  the  second  called  for  the 
concision  and  comprehensiveness  of  a  manual.  The  remaining  sections 
of  the  work,  the  defects  of  which  are  less  manifest  in  the  detail 
of  description  than  in  orderly  disposition,  could  not  receive  at  my 
hands  so  thorough  a  revision  as  would  otherwise  have  been  bestowed 
upon  them. 

The  contents  of  the  work  are  notably  increased  by  the  insertion 
of  numerous  writers  and  works  omitted  in  the  first  edition  or  dis- 
covered since  its  appearance.  At  the  same  time  the  publisher  de- 
sired to  keep  the  work  within  its  original  limits.  This  could  only 
be  done  by  omitting  what  seemed  unimportant,  by  simplifying  quo- 
tation-methods, and  by  the  use  of  more  compact  type  for  the  biblio- 
graphical paragraphs.  In  this  manner  it  has  been  possible  to  reduce 
the  size  of  the  book  by  some  thirty  pages. 

I  am  indebted  to  several  scholars,  particularly  to  Fr.  Diekamp, 
A.  Ehr  hard,  Fr.  X.  Funk,  J.  Haussleiter,  G.  Krüger,  and  C.  Wey- 
man  for  many  useful  hints  and  suggestions.  I  am  again  especially 
indebted  to  Dr.  Weyman  for  his  careful  correction  of  the  printer's  work. 

Munich,  April,   1901. 

The  Author. 

1  Les  Peres  de  l'Eglise  ,  leur  vie  et  leurs  ceuvres ,  par  0.  Bardenhewer.  Edition 
franchise,  par  P.  Godet  et  C.  Verschaffel ,  de  l'Oratoire,  3  vols.,  Paris,  1898  — 1899, 
Bloud  et  Barral. 

2  Patrologia,  per  il  Dr.  0.  Bardenhewer,  Professore  di  Teologia  all'  Universitä  di 
Monaco.  Versione  Italiana  sulla  seconda  edizione  Tedesca,  con  aggiunte  bibliografiche,  per 
il  Sacerdote  Dr.  Prof.  Angelo  Mercati.    Voll,  i — iii,  Roma,    1903,  Desclee,   Lefvre  et  Cie. 


TRANSLATOR'S  PREFACE. 


The  need  of  a  reliable  manual  of  Patrology  in  English  has  been 
so  long  felt  by  teachers  of  that  science  that  little  excuse  is  needed 
for  the  present  attempt  to  place  one  within  reach  of  all  concerned. 
During  the  nineteenth  century  much  patristic  material,  both  new  and 
important,  has  been  discovered,  East  and  West.  In  the  same  period 
there  has  come  about  a  notable  perfection  of  the  methods  and  in- 
struments of  scholarly  research,  while  literary  criticism  has  scored 
some  of  its  remarkable  triumphs  in  the  province  of  early  ecclesiastical 
literature.  Above  all,  the  intense  and  crucial  conflict  concerning  the 
genuine  nature  and  actual  History  of  the  primitive  Christian  teaching 
has  perforce  attracted  the  combatants  to  one  great  armory  of 
weapons:  the  writings  of  the  Christian  Fathers.  Excavation  and 
research  among  the  ancient  monuments  of  Roman  imperial  times 
have  naturally  quickened  interest  in  all  contemporary  literary  material. 
An  intelligent  study  of  the  early  middle  ages  has  made  clear  the 
incalculable  influence  exercised  upon  the  barbarian  world  by  the 
Christianized  civilization  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries ;  the  manners, 
politics,  and  tongues  of  the  ancestors  of  the  modern  Western  world 
can  no  longer  be  studied  scientifically  apart  from  a  sound  knowledge 
of  what  our  earliest  Christian  masters  were.  At  this  distance,  such 
knowledge  must,  of  course,  be  gathered,  to  a  great  extent,  from 
their  literature,  or  rather  from  the  remnants  of  it  that  survive. 

It  is  to  the  credit  of  German  Catholic  scholarship  that  for  a 
hundred  years  it  has  upheld  the  necessity  of  a  solid  academic  forma- 
tion for  ecclesiastics,  at  least,  in  the  science  of  the  Christian  Fathers. 
The  names  of  Lumper  and  Permaneder,  Drew  and  Moehler,  Hefele 
and  Fess/er,  to  speak  only  of  the  departed,  come  unbidden  to  the 
memory  of  every  student.  German  Catholic  centres  of  study,  like 
the  Catholic  Theological  Faculty  at  Tübingen,  have  won  imperishable 
fame  by  long  decades  of  service  in  the  cause  of  primitive  Christian 
literature.  Scholars  like  Probst  and  v.  Funk  have  shed  renown  upon 
their  fatherland  and    earned   the    gratitude   of  a  multitude  of  toilers 


XII  TRANSLATOR  S    PREFACE. 

in  this  remote  department  of  knowledge.  Only  those  who  attempt 
to  cultivate  it,  know  what  a  lengthy  training  it  exacts,  and  to  what 
an  extent  it  calls  for  all  the  virtues  and  qualities  of  the  ripest 
scholarship.  It  is  not,  therefore,  surprising  that  the  best  Manual  of 
patristic  science  should  come  to  us  from  that  quarter  of  Catholicism 
in  which  our  most  ancient  literature  has  long  been  studied  with  a 
devotion  equalled  only  by  the  critical  spirit  that  feeds  and  sustains  it. 

When  such  competent  judges  as  the  modern  Bollandists  agree 
that  the  «Patrologie»  of  Dr.  Bardenhewer  has  no  superior,  for  ab- 
undance of  information,  exactness  of  reference,  and  conciseness  of 
statement,  we  may  take  it  for  granted  that  the  work  is  well  fitted 
to  introduce  all  studious  Christian  youth  into  the  broad  and  pleasant 
sanctuary  of  patristic  science.  The  experience  of  ecclesiastical  teachers 
confirms  this  judgment;  for  the  work  has  already  been  translated, 
into  both  French  and  Italian.  The  English  translator  has  added  / 
nothing  to  the  text,  being  well  contented  if  he  has  reproduced  with 
substantial  accuracy  the  already  highly  condensed  doctrine  of  the 
author.  However,  a  few  slight  additions  and  bibliographical  items 
have  been  incorporated  from  the  French  and  Italian  translations.  The 
translator  has  also  added  a  few  bibliographical  references  to  patristic 
works  and  treatises  that  have  appeared  quite  lately.  It  may  be 
pleaded  that  he  is  dispensed  from  very  finical  completeness  by 
the  exhaustive  study  of  Ehrhard  (Die  altchristliche  Literatur  und 
ihre  Erforschung  seit  1880  [1884]  bis  1900),  the  second  edition  of 
Chevaliers  Bio-Bibliographie  (1905),  and  the  admirable  patristic 
Comptes-rendus  of  the  Revue  d'histoire  ecclesiastique  of  Louvain. 

The  translator  is  much  indebted  to  Very  Rev.  ReginaldWalsh,  O.  P., 
who  has  kindly  consented  to  correct  the  proofs;  to  the  author, 
Professor  Bardenhewer ,  for  various  services,  and  to  others  for  wel- 
come hints  and  suggestions. 

Thomas  J.  Shahan. 


CONTENTS. 


INTRODUCTION. 

§  I.    Notion  and  Purpose  of  Patrol ogy      ........ 

§  2.    History  and  Literature  of  Patrology  •    . 

§  3.    Literary    collections   relative    to    the  Fathers    of   the    Church.     Collective 
editions  of  their  writings.     Principal  collections  of  translations 


Page 

I 

7 
11 


FIRST  PERIOD. 

FROM  THE  END  OF  THE  FIRST  TO  THE  BEGINNING 
OF  THE  FOURTH  CENTURY. 

FIRST  SECTION. 
PRIMITIVE  ECCLESIASTICAL  LITERATURE. 


§     4.    Preliminary  Remarks      ...... 

15 

§     5.    The  Apostles'   Creed  (Symbolum  Apostolicum) 

17 

§     6.    The  Didache  or  Teaching  of  The  Twelve  Apostles 

19 

§     7.    The  so-called  Epistle  of  Barnabas 

22 

§     8.    Clement  of  Rome  ....... 

25 

§     9.    Ignatius  of  Antioch        ...... 

30 

§10.    Polycarp  of  Smyrna       ...... 

35 

§   11.    The  Shepherd  of  Hennas       ..... 

38 

§   12.    Papias  of  Hierapolis       ...... 

43 

SECOND  SECTION. 
THE  APOLOGETIC  LITERATURE  OF  THE  SECOND  CENTURY. 


§13.  Preliminary  Observations         .  .  . 

§14.  Quadratus      ......... 

§   15.  Aristides  of  Athens         ....... 

§   16.  Aristo  of  Pella 

§   17.  Justin  Martyr  .  .  .  .  .  . 

§18.  Tatian  the  Assyrian       .  .  .  ... 

§19.  Miltiades.     Apollinaris  of  Hierapolis.     Melito  of  Sardes 

§  20.  Athenagoras  of  Athens  ....... 

§21.  Theophilus  of  Antioch  ....... 

§  22.  The  Letter  to  Diognetus        ...... 

§  23.  Hermias .  .  . 

§  24.  Minucius  Felix       .  


44 
46 
46 
48 
49 
57 
61 
64 

65 
68 

69 
70 


XVI 


CONTENTS. 


§  77.    St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria 

§  78.    Theodoret  of  Cyrus 

§  79.    Other  writers  of  the  first  half  of  the  fifth  century 


§  84 
§  85 
§  86 
§  87 

§  »ß 
§  89 
§  90 
§  91 
§  92 

§  93 
§  94 
§  95 
§  96 
§  97 


General  conspectus      .... 

Firmicus  Maternus        .  .  . 

St.  Hilary  of  Poitiers  .... 

Other  opponents  of  Arianism 

Poets  and  Historians    .... 

Schisms  and  heresies;  their  defenders  and  opponents 

St.  Ambrose         ..... 

Prudentius  and  Paulinus 

St.  Sulpicius  Severus  and  Tyrannius  Rufinus 

St.  Jerome  .  .  .  . 

St.  Augustine      ..... 

Friends  and  disciples  of  St.  Augustine 

Gallic  writers       .  .  . 

Pope  St.  Leo  the  Great  and  other  Italian  writers 


Page 
360 
370 
376 


SECOND  SECTION. 
SYRIAC  WRITERS. 

§  80.  Preliminary  observations       .          .          .          .          .          .          .          .          •  384 

§  81.  Aphraates 385 

§  82.  St.  Ephrsem  Syrus 387 

§  83.  Later  writers 393 

THIRD  SECTION. 
LATIN  WRITERS. 


397 
401 
402 
412 
419 
425 
431 
444 
451 
455 
473 
508 

515 
522 


THIRD  PERIOD. 

FROM  THE  MIDDLE  OF  THE  FIFTH  CENTURY  TO  THE 
END  OF  THE  PATRISTIC  AGE. 


FIRST  SECTION. 
GREEK  WRITERS. 


§  98.  General  conspectus     ...... 

§  99.  Writers  of  the  second  half  of  the  fifth  century  . 

§  100.  Pseudo-Dionysius  Areopagita       .          .          . 

§  10 1.  Procopius  of  Gaza  and  Aeneas  of  Gaza 

§  102.  Leontius  of  Byzantium  and  the  emperor  Justinian 

§  103.  Historians  and  Geographers 

§  104.  Hagiographers    .... 

§  105.  Poets 

§  106.  Exegetes.     Canonists.     Ascetics. 

§  107.  Dogmatic  and  polemical  writers 

§  108.  St.  John  of  Damascus 


529 
531 
535 
541 
544 
552 
557 
562 

569 
574 

582 


CONTENTS. 


XVII 


SECOND  SECTION. 
ARMENIAN  WRITERS. 

§  109.    Sketch  of  the  early  Armenian  ecclesiastical  literature 

THIRD  SECTION. 

LATIN  WRITERS. 

§  no.  General  conspectus    ....... 

§  in.  Faustus  of  Reji  ... 

§  112.  Other  Gallic  writers  .  .  ... 

§   113.  Irish,  Spanish,  and  African  writers     . 

§   114.  Italian  writers     ....... 

§   115.  Boethius  and  Cassiodorius  .  . 

§   116.  Writers  in  the  Three  Chapters  controversy 

§  117.  St.  Gregory  of  Tours  and  Venantius  Fortunatus 

§118.  Pope  St.  Gregory  the  Great       .... 

§  119.  St.  Martin  of  Bracara  and  St.  Isidore  of  Seville 
Index         ....... 


Page 

589 


597 
600 
605 
613 
620 
628 
638 

643 
650 
658 
665 


INTRODUCTION. 


§  i.    Notion  and  Purpose  of  Patrology. 

I.  THE  FATHERS  OF  THE  CHURCH.  The  word  Patrology  (narpo- 
Xoyia)  dates  from  the  seventeenth  century,  and  denoted  originally 
the  science  of  the  lives  and  writings  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church. 
«Fathers  of  the  Church»  or  simply  «Fathers»  was  the  title  of  honour 
given  to  the  ecclesiastical  writers  in  the  first  era  of  the  Church. 
Its  use  can  be  recognized  as  far  back  as  the  fifth  century.  In 
modern  times  the  explanation  of  the  term  has  been  sought  in  the 
similarity  of  the  relationship  existing  between  a  teacher  and  his  dis- 
ciple to  that  which  is  found  between  father  and  son;  an  inter- 
pretation apparently  confirmed  by  such  biblical  parallels  as  the  «sons 
of  the  prophets»  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  by  passages  in  the  New 
like  I  Cor.  iv.  14.  It  fails,  however,  to  do  justice  to  the  historical 
development  of  the  name  «Fathers».  In  reality,  this  was  trans- 
ferred from  the  bishops  of  the  primitive  Church  to  contemporaneous 
ecclesiastical  writers.  In  the  earlier  centuries,  by  a  metaphor  easily 
understood,  the  bishop,  in  his  quality  of  head  or  superior,  was  ad- 
dressed as  «Father»  or  «Holy  Father»  (e.  g.  Mart.  S.  Polyc.  12,  2: 
v  naTTjp  rcbv  ypiaziavcov',  and  the  inscription  «Cypriano  papae  or 
papati» ,  Cypr.  Ep.  30  31  36).  The  authority  of  the  bishop  was 
both  disciplinary  and  doctrinal.  He  was  the  depositary  of  the 
teaching  office  of  the  Church,  and  in  matters  of  doubt  or  of  contro- 
versy it  was  his  duty  to  decide,  as  witness  and  judge,  concerning 
the  true  faith.  Since  the  fifth  century,  nowever,  this  function  began 
to  devolve  (in  learned  discussions  and  conciliar  proceedings)  on  the 
ecclesiastical  writers  of  the  primitive  Church.  Most  of  them,  and 
those  the  more  eminent,  had,  indeed,  been  bishops;  but  non-episcopal 
writers  might  also  bear  reliable  witness  to  the  contemporaneous  faith 
of  the  Church ,  and  when  such  testimonies  dated  from  the  earliest 
Christian  period,  they  naturally  enjoyed  special  respect  and  authority. 
The  more  frequently  the  consciousness  of  the  primitive  Church  in 
matters  of  faith  was  appealed  to  in  the  course  of  doctrinal  disputes,  the 
more  rapidly  must  so  prevalent  a  term  as  «Fathers»  have  undergone  a 
certain  alteration.     It  was  used  to  denote  the  witnesses  to  the  faith 

Bardenhevver-Shahan,  Patrology.  I 


2  INTRODUCTION. 

of  the   primitive  Church,    and   since   such  witnesses   were   rather  its 
writers  than  its  bishops,  the  term  passed  from  the  latter  to  the  former. 

The  change  of  meaning  just  alluded  to  will  be  made  evident  by  the 
following  instances.  According  to  St.  Athanasius  (Ep.  ad  Afros,  c.  6),  the 
bishops  of  the  Council  ofNicaea  (325)  appealed  to  the  testimony  of  the  «Fathers» 
(ex  TcaTspwv  syovTs?  tyjv  jxapxupiav)  in  defence  of  the  consubstantiality  of  the 
Son  with  the  Father;  especially  prominent  among  these  «Fathers»  were  two 
early  bishops  (e-itaotzoi  ap^aibi),  Dionysius  of  Rome  (f  268)  and  Dionysius  of 
Alexandria  (f  265),  both  of  them  defenders  of  the  consubstantiality  of  the  Son. 
«How  can  they  now  reject  the  Council  ofNicaea»,  says  Athanasius,  «since  even 
their  own  fathers  (xal  01  ttarlpsc  auxwv)  subscribed  its  decrees?»  He  had  just 
mentioned  the  name  of  the  Arianizing  bishop  Eusebius  of  Caesarea.  «Whose 
heirs  and  successors  are  they?  How  can  they  call  those  men  Fathers  (Xsystv 
Trarspac)  whose  profession  (of  faith)  they  do  not  accept?»  Apparently  Atha- 
nasius understands  by  «Fathers»  only  bishops,  especially  those  of  the  primi- 
tive Church.  The  bishops,  and  they  alone,  had  inherited  the  teaching  office 
of  the  Apostles.  St.  Augustine,  in  his  dispute  with  the  Pelagian  Julianus  of 
Eclanum  (Contra  Julian.  I.  34 ;  II.  t,^  36),  appeals  to  St.  Jerome  as  a  witness 
for  the  ecclesiastical  teaching  concerning  original  sin ;  at  the  same  time  he 
is  conscious  of  having  overstepped  a  certain  line  of  demarcation.  To 
forestall  his  adversary's  refusal  to  accept  the  evidence  of  Jerome,  he  insists 
that,  though  the  latter  was  not  a  bishop,  his  extraordinary  learning  and  the 
holiness  of  his  life  entitled  him  to  be  held  a  reliable  interpreter  of  the  faith 
of  the  Church.  At  the  first  session  of  the  council  of  Ephesus  (431),  testi- 
monies were  read  from  the  «writings  of  the  most  holy  and  godfearing  fathers 
and  bishops  and  other  witnesses»  (ßißXia  tu>v  a-yiioTaTtov  xal  oauoTatcDV  TraTspwv 
xal  l-icrxorccov  xal  oiacpopwv  [xapTuprov,  Mansi,  SS.  Cone.  Coll.,  iv.  1184).  The 
«writings»  quoted  are  exclusively  those  of  early  bishops.  In  his  famous 
Commonitorium  (434)  St.  Vincent  of  Lerins  recommends  with  insistence 
(c-  3  33  sq.)  that  the  faithful  hold  fast  to  the  teaching  of  the  holy  Fathers ; 
at  the  same  time  he  makes  it  clear  that  he  refers,  not  so  much  to  the 
bishops,  as  to  the  ecclesiastical  writers  of  Christian  antiquity. 

2.  FATHERS  OF  THE  CHURCH,  ECCLESIASTICAL  WRITERS,  DOCTORS 
OF  THE  CHURCH.  All  the  ancient  ecclesiastical  writers  were  not 
trustworthy  witnesses  of  the  faith;  hence  it  is  that  posterity  has  not 
conferred  on  all  without  distinction  the  title  of  «Fathers  of  the  Church». 
St.  Vincent  of  Lerins  says  that,  in  order  to  try  the  faith  of  Christians, 
God  permitted  some  great  ecclesiastical  teachers,  like  Origen  and 
Tertullian,  to  fall  into  error.  The  true  norm  and  rule  of  faith,  he 
adds,  is  the  concordant  evidence  of  those  Fathers  who  have  remained 
true  to  the  faith  of  the  Church  in  their  time,  and  were  to  the  end 
of  their  lives  examples  of  Christian  virtue:  «Eorum  dumtaxat  patrum 
sententiae  conferendae  sunt,  qui  in  fide  et  communione  catholica  sancte, 
sapienter,  constanter  viventes,  docentes  et  permanentes  vel  mori  in 
Christo  fideliter  vel  occidi  pro  Christo  feliciter  meruerunt. »  1  Pope 
Hormisdas2  refuses  to  accept  appeals  to  the  Semi-Pelagian  Faustus 
of  Riez  and  other  theologians,  on  the  plea  that  they  were  not   «Fa- 

1  Common,  c.   39;   cf.   c.   41. 

2  Quos  in  auctoritatem  patrum  non  recipit  examen  :  Ep.    124,  c.  4. 


§    I.      NOTION   AND    PURPOSE    OF    PATROLOGY.  3 

thers».  Later  Councils  often  distinguish  between  theological  writers 
more  or  less  untrustworthy  and  the  «approved  Fathers  of  the  Church». 1 
The  earliest  descriptive  catalogue  of  «Fathers»  whose  writings  merit 
commendation,  as  well  as  of  other  theological  authors  against  whose 
writings  people  are  to  be  warned ,  is  found  in  the  Decretal  De  re- 
cipiendis  et  non  recipiendis  libris,  current  under  the  name  of  Pope 
Gelasius  I.  (492 — 496).  Modern  patrologists  indicate  four  criteria  of 
a  «Father  of  the  Church»:  orthodoxy  of  doctrine,  holiness  of  life, 
ecclesiastical  approval,  and  antiquity.  All  other  theological  writers 
are  known  as  « ecclesiastici  scriptores»,  «ecclesiae  scriptores»  2.  The 
Fathers  were  not  all  held  in  equal  esteem  by  their  successors ;  both 
as  writers  and  theologians  they  differ  much  as  to  place  and  im- 
portance in  ecclesiastical  antiquity.  In  the  West  four  «Fathers  of  the 
Church»  have  been  held  as  pre-eminent  since  the  eighth  century: 
Ambrose  (f  397),  Jerome  (f  420),  Augustine  (f  430),  and  Gregory 
the  Great  (f  604);  Boniface  VIII.  declared  (1298)  that  he  wished 
these  four  known  as  Doctors  of  the  Church  par  excellence,  and 
their  feasts  placed  on  a  level  with  those  of  the  apostles  and  evange- 
lists 3.  Later  popes  have  added  other  Fathers  to  the  list  of  Doctors 
of  the  Church,  either  in  liturgical  documents  or  by  special  decrees. 
Such  are,  among  the  Latins,  Hilary  of  Poitiers  (f  366),  Peter 
Chrysologus  (f  ca.  450),  Leo  the  Great  (f  461),  Isidore  of  Seville 
(f  636).  Among  the  Greeks,  Athanasius  (f  373),  Basil  the  Great 
(f  379)'  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  (f  386),  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  (f  ca.  390), 
John  Chrysostom  (f  407),  Cyril  of  Alexandria  (f  444),  John  of  Da- 
mascus (f  ca.  754),  are  honoured  as  Doctors  of  the  Church.  Some  later 
theological  writers  thus  distinguished  are :  Peter  Damian  (f  1072), 
Anselm  of  Canterbury  (f  1 109),  Bernard  ofClairvaux  (f  11 53),  Thomas 
Aquinas  (f  1274),  Bonaventure  (f  1274),  Francis  of  Sales  (f  1622), 
and  Alphonsus  Liguori  (f  1787).  In  1899  Leo  XIII.  declared  the 
Venerable  Bede  (f  735)  a  Doctor  of  the  Church.  The  liturgical  books 
of  the  Greek  Church  make  mention  of  only  three  «great  ecumenical 
teachers»  (olxoofievixoi  fieydkoi  dtddaxaXot):  Basil  the  Great,  Gregory 
of  Nazianzum,  and  John  Chrysostom.  The  patrological  criteria  of  a 
: Doctor  of  the  Church»  are:  orthodoxy  of  doctrine,  holiness  of  life, 
eminent  learning,  and  formal  action  of  the  Church:  «doctrina  ortho- 
doxa,  sanctitas  vitae,  eminens  eruditio,  expressa  ecclesiae  declaratio». 

J.  Fessler,  Instit.  Patrol,  ed.  B.  Jungmann  (Innspruck  1890),  i.  15 — 57. 
On  the  earliest  Latin  Doctors  of  the  Church  cf.  C.  Weyman  in  Historisches 
Jahrbuch  (1894),  xv.  96  sq.,  and  Revue  d'histoire  et  de  litte'rat.  relig.  (1898), 
iii.  562  sq.    On  the  «great  ecumenical  teachers»  of  the  Greeks  cf.  N.  Nilles 

1  Probabiles  ecclesiae  patres:  Cone.  Lat.  Rom.  (649)  can.  18  (Mansi  x.  1157); 
01  iyzpizot  Tzaripsg:  Cone.  Nie.  II  (787)  act.  6  {Mansi  xiii.   313). 

2  St.  Jerome,  De  viris  illustr.,  prol. 

3  Egregios  ipsius  doctores  ecclesiae:   c.  un,,  in  vi.,  de  reliquiis  3,   22. 


4  INTRODUCTION. 

in  Zeitschrift   für   katholische  Theologie    (1894),    xviii.  742  sq.;  E.  Bondy, 
Les  Peres  de  l'figlise  in  Revue  Augustinienne  (1904),  pp.  461 — 486. 

3.  THE  PATRISTIC  EPOCH.  As  late  as  the  fifth  century  even  very 
recent  writers  could  be  counted  among  the  «holy  Fathers».  Among 
the  «most  holy  and  godfearing  Fathers»  whose  writings  were  read  in 
the  first  session  of  the  Council  of  Ephesus  (June  22.,  43 1)1  were  Theo- 
philus  of  Alexandria  (f  412)  and  Atticus  of  Constantinople  (t  425)- 
In  the  list  of  patristic  citations,  «paternae  auctoritates»,  appended  by 
Leo  the  Great  to  his  Letter  to  Flavian  of  Constantinople  (June  13.,  449) 2 
there  are  passages  from  Augustine  (f  430)  and  from  Cyril  of  Alex- 
andria (f  444).  The  later  Christian  centuries  tended  more  and  more 
to  confine  this  honourable  title  to  the  ecclesiastical  writers  of  anti- 
quity. It  was  applied  to  them  not  so  much  on  account  of  their 
antiquity  as  on  account  of  their  authority,  which,  in  turn,  had  its 
root  in  their  antiquity.  The  «Fathers»  of  the  first  centuries  are  and 
remain  in  a  special  way  the  authentic  interpreters  of  the  thoughts 
and  sentiments  of  the  primitive  Christians.  In  their  writings  were  set 
down  for  all  time  documentary  testimonies  to  the  primitive  conception 
of  the  faith.  Though  modern  Christian  sects  have  always  denounced 
the  Catholic  principle  of  «tradition» ,  they  have  been  compelled, 
by  the  logic  of  things,  to  seek  in  ecclesiastical  antiquity  for  some 
basis  or  countenance  of  their  own  mutually  antagonistic  views.  The 
limits  of  Christian  antiquity  could  not,  of  course,  be  easily  fixed; 
they  remain  even  yet  somewhat  indistinct.  The  living  current  of 
historical,  and  particularly  of  intellectual  life,  always  defies  any  im- 
movable time-boundaries.  Most  modern  manuals  of  Patrology  draw 
the  line  for  the  Greek  Church  at  the  death  of  John  of  Damascus 
(f  ca.  754),  for  the  Latin  Church  at  the  death  of  Gregory  the  Great 
(f  604).  For  Latin  ecclesiastical  literature  the  limit  should  be 
stretched  to  the  death  of  Isidore  of  Seville  (f  636).  Like  his 
Greek  counterpart,  John  Damascene ,  Isidore  was  a  very  productive 
writer,  and  thoroughly  penetrated  with  the  sense  of  his  office  as  a 
frontiersman  between  the  old  and  the  new. 

The  teachings  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church  are  among  the  original 
sources  of  Catholic  doctrine.  On  the  reasons  for  the  same  and  the  extent 
to  which  the  patristic  writings  may  be  drawn  upon  for  the  proof  of 
Catholic  teaching  cf.  Fessler- Jungmann,  op.  cit.,  i.  41 — 57. 

4.  PURPOSE  of  PATROLOGY.  Though  the  science  of  Patrology 
takes  its  name  from  the  Fathers  of  the  Church,  it  includes  also  the 
ecclesiastical  writers  of  antiquity.  Thereby,  the  field  of  its  labours 
is  enlarged,  and  it  becomes  possible  to  deal  with  ecclesiastical  litera- 
ture as  a  whole.  The  purpose  of  this  science  is  to  produce  a 
history  of  the  early  ecclesiastical  literature,    that  is,  of  such    ancient 

1  Mansi,  iv.    1184 — 1196.  2  Ib.,   vi.  961 — 972. 


§    I.      NOTION    AND    PURPOSE    OF    PATROLOGY.  5 

theological  literature  as  arose  on  the  basis  of  the  teachings  of  the 
Church.  In  the  peculiar  and  unique  significance  of  this  literature, 
Patrology  finds  the  justification  of  such  a  narrow  limitation  of  its 
subject-matter.  Though  this  science  does  not  ignore  the  distinction 
between  the  human  and  the  divine  in  the  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, it  confides  the  study  of  these  writings  to  Biblical  Introduction, 
convinced  that  it  would  otherwise  be  obliged  to  confine  itself  to  such 
a  treatment  of  the  same  as  would  be  unjust  to  inspired  documents  that 
contain  revelation.  Patrology  might,  strictly  speaking,  ignore  the 
anti-Christian  and  anti-ecclesiastical,  or  heretical,  writings  of  antiquity ; 
nevertheless,  it  finds  it  advantageous  to  pay  constant  attention  to  them. 
At  the  proper  time,  it  becomes  the  duty  of  the  patrologist,  in  his 
quality  of  historian  of  Christian  doctrine,  to  exhibit  the  genetic  growth 
of  his  subject.  The  development  of  early  ecclesiastical  literature  was 
conditioned  and  influenced  in  a  notable  degree  by  the  literary  conflict 
against  paganism ,  Judaism  and  heresy.  The  earliest  ecclesiastical 
writers  enter  the  lists  precisely  as  defenders  of  Christianity  against 
formal  literary  assaults.  We  do  not  accept  as  accurate  a  modern 
definition  of  Patrology  as  «the  literary  history  of  early  Christianity». 
From  that  point  of  view,  it  would  have  to  include  even  the  profane 
works  of  Christian  writers,  and  become  the  Christian  equivalent  of 
heathen  and  Jewish  literature.  Moreover,  it  is  not  so  much  the  pro- 
fession of  Christianity  on  the  part  of  the  writer  as  the  theologico- 
ecclesiastical  character  of  his  work  that  brings  it  within  the  range  of 
Patrology,  and  stamps  upon  it  for  all  time  something  peculiar  and 
distinctive.  If  we  must  no  longer  use  the  word  Patrology,  the  science 
may  well  be  defined  as  the  history  of  early  ecclesiastical  literature. 
The  considerations  that  affect  the  selection  of  the  material,  and  the 
limitations  of  Patrology  affect  also  the  treatment  of  the  subject-matter. 
Stress  is  laid  more  on  the  theological  point  of  view,  on  the  contents 
of  the  patristic  writings,  than  on  mere  literary  form.  It  is  true  that 
literary  history  has  a  distinctly  artistic  interest.  In  general,  however, 
the  writings  of  the  Fathers  are  not  literary  art-work;  they  expressly 
avoid  such  a  character.  Until  very  lately  a  distinction  was  drawn 
between  Patrology  and  «Patristic».  To  the  latter,  it  was  said,  be- 
longed the  study  of  the  doctrinal  content  of  the  early  Christian  writers. 
The  word  «Patristic»  comes  from  the  «theologia  patristica»  of  former 
Protestant  manuals  of  dogmatic  theology  that  were  wont  to  contain 
a  special  section  devoted  to  the  opinions  of  the  Fathers.  This 
was  called  «theologia  patristica» ,  and  distinguished  from  «theo- 
logia biblica»  and  «theologia  symbolica».  In  the  latter  half  of  the 
eighteenth  century  this  «theologia  patristica»  gave  way  among  Pro- 
testants to  a  specific  history  of  dogma,  destined  to  illustrate  the  con- 
stant development  and  evolution  of  the  original  apostolic  teaching. 
Thereby,    the   special    office    of   «Patristic»    was   exhausted.     There 


Ö  INTRODUCTION. 

remains,  therefore,  no  longer  any  good  reason  for  withdrawing  from 
Patrology  the  description  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Fathers,  and  con- 
fining it  to  an  account  of  their  lives  and  deeds.  With  the  loss  of 
its  subject-matter,  the  raison  d'etre  of  «Patristic»  disappears.  —  In 
the  last  few  decades,  all  former  expositions  of  Patrology  have  suf- 
fered severe  reproaches  both  from  friend  and  foe.  Broadly  con- 
sidered, such  reproaches  were  both  reasonable  and  just.  It  is  proper 
that  in  the  future  Patrology  should  develop  along  the  line  of  scienti- 
fic history,  should  grasp  more  firmly  and  penetrate  more  deeply  its 
own  subject-matter,  should  first  digest,  and  then  exhibit  in  a  scienti- 
fic and  philosophic  way,  the  mass  of  literary-historical  facts  that 
come  within  its  purview.  In  other  words,  its  office  is  no  longer 
limited  to  the  study,  in  themselves  alone,  of  the  writings  of  individual 
Fathers,  or  of  individual  writings  of  the  Fathers;  it  must  also  set 
forth  the  active  forces  that  are  common  to  all,  and  the  relations  of 
all  to  their  own  world  and  their  own  time. 

Fr.  Nitzsch,  Geschichtliches  und  Methodologisches  zur  Patristik:  Jahr- 
bücher für  deutsche  Theologie  (1865),  x.  37 — 63.  Nitzsch  uses  the  term 
Patristic  as  identical  with  Patrology.  Fr.  Overbeck ,  Über  die  Anfänge 
der  patristischen  Literatur:  Historische  Zeitschrift  (new  series)  (1882),  xii. 
417 — 472.  A.  Ehrhard ,  Zur  Behandlung  der  Patrologie:  Literarischer 
Handweiser,  1895,  601 — 608.  J.  Haussleiter,  Der  Aufbau  der  altchristlichen 
Literatur:  Götting.  Gelehrte  Anzeigen  (Berlin,  1898). 

5.  MODERN  HISTORY  OF  EARLY  CHRISTIAN  LITERATURE.  Modern 
Protestant  and  Rationalist  scholars  have  created  in  the  place  of  Patro- 
logy a  history  of  early  Christian  literature,  the  purpose  of  which  is 
to  investigate  and  criticize,  independently  of  its  theological  or  eccle- 
siastical aspects,  the  entire  intellectual  product  of  Christian  antiquity 
from  a  purely  literary  standpoint.  They  have  been  led  to  this  trans- 
formation, or  rather  rejection  of  Patrology,  not  so  much  by  general 
scientific  principles,  as  by  the  hypotheses  of  modern  rationalistic 
Protestantism,  foremost  among  which  is  the  denial  of  the  supernatural 
origin  of  Christianity  and  the  Church.  According  to  them,  the  so- 
called  Catholic  Church  was  not  founded  by  Jesus  Christ.  It  was 
only  after  a  long  evolutionary  period,  during  which  the  Gospel  of 
Christ  underwent  steadily  a  number  of  profoundly  modifying  influences 
in  the  sense  of  paganism,  and  particularly  of  hellenism,  that  the 
Catholic  Church  appeared  among  men  toward  the  end  of  the  se- 
cond century.  Since  that  time,  both  this  Church  and  its  doctrines 
have  been  at  all  times  the  subject  of  the  most  far-reaching  changes 
and  the  most  inconsistent  innovations.  The  so-called  Fathers  of  the 
Church  represent  only  their  own  personal  and  very  mutable  opinions. 
There  is  no  more  objective  difference  between  ecclesiastical  and  non- 
ecclesiastical,  orthodox  and  heretical  teaching,  than  between  the  in- 
spired and  non-inspired  books  of  the  Scriptures,  etc. 


§    2.      HISTORY    AND    LITERATURE    OF    PATROLOGY.  J 

It  is  this  view  of  early  ecclesiastical  literature  (in  the  first  three 
centuries)  that  predominates  in  the  works  of  A.  Harnack  and  G.  Krüger 

(Cf.    §    2,    4). 

§  2.     History  and  Literature  of  Patrology. 

1.  St.  Jerome.  —  We  owe  to  St.  Jerome  the  idea  of  a  Patro- 
logy or  history  of  Christian  theological  literature.  His  work  on  the 
Christian  writers  was  composed  at  Bethlehem  in  392  at  the  sug- 
gestion of  the  pretorian  prefect  Dexter 1.  It  is  modelled  on  the 
homonymous  work  of  Suetonius  (ca.  75 — 160),  and  professes  to 
be  a  brief  account  of  all  those  «ecclesiastical  writers»  («ecclesiae 
scriptores»)  who  have  written  on  the  Sacred  Scriptures  («de  scripturis 
Sanctis  aliquid  memoriae  prodiderunt»)  from  the  Crucifixion  to  the 
fourteenth  year  of  the  reign  of  Theodosius  (392).  The  first  chapters 
are  devoted  to  the  books  of  the  New  Testament;  later  on,  even 
heretical  writers  are  added  (Bardesanes  c.  33,  Novatian  c.  70,  and 
others).  At  the  end  (c.  135)  he  gives  an  account  of  his  own  writ- 
ings as  far  as  the  year  392.  The  material  of  the  first  chapters  is 
taken  from  the  New  Testament;  the  following  sections,  on  the  Greek 
writers  of  the  first  three  centuries,  are  hastily  made  and  inaccurate 
excerpts  from  the  Church  History  of  Eusebius  of  Caesarea.  The 
chapters  on  the  Latin  writers  and  on  later  Greek  writers  represent 
the  personal  knowledge  and  research  of  St.  Jerome,  and  although 
they  do  not  entirely  satisfy  our  just  expectations,  they  are  never- 
theless an  historical  authority  of  the  first  rank.  Erasmus,  who 
first  edited  (15 16)  the  «De  viris  illustribus»,  published  also  a  Greek 
translation  of  the  work  {Migne  1.  c.)  which  he  attributed  to  Sophro- 
nius,  a  contemporary  of  St.  Jerome.  It  was  not,  however,  executed 
before  the  seventh  century. 

In  the  very  numerous  manuscripts  of  this  work  of  St.  Jerome  the  con- 
tinuation by  Gennadius  (n.  2)  is  usually  found.  It  is  also  printed  in  the 
latest  editions,  by  W.  Herding,  Leipzig,  1879;  C-  ^-  Bernoulli,  Sammlung 
ausgewählter  kirchen-  und  dogmengeschichtlicher  Quellenschriften  xi.,  Frei- 
burg i.  Br.  (1895),  and  E.  C.  Richardson,  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  zur 
Geschichte  der  altchristlichen  Literatur,  Leipzig,  1896,  xiv.  1.  These  editions 
have  not  rendered  further  improvement  impossible.  O.  v.  Gebhardt  has 
given  us  an  excellent  edition  of  the  Greek  translation,  Leipzig,  1896  (Texte 
und  Untersuchungen  1.  c).  Cf.  St.  v.  Sychowski,  Hieronymus  als  Literar- 
historiker, Münster,  1894  (Kirchengeschichtliche  Studien,  ii.  2);  C.  A. 
Bernoulli,  Der  Schriftstellerkatalog  des  Hieronymus,  Freiburg  i.  Br.,  1895; 
G.  Wentzel,  Die  griechische  Übersetzung  der  Viri  inlustres  des  Hieronymus, 
Leipzig,   1895  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  xiii.  3). 

2.  CONTINU ATORS  OF  St.  Jerome.  —  For  more  than  a  thousand 
years,  this  little  book  of  the  Hermit  of  Bethlehem  served  as  the 
basis  of  all  later  efforts  to  produce  a  history  of  theological  litera- 
ture.    All  later  compilers  linked  their  work  to  his,    and   even   when 

1  De  viris  illustr. :  Migne,  PL.,  xxiii.  601  —  720. 


8  INTRODUCTION. 

there  was  added  a  name  forgotten  by  him,  or  by  one  of  his  con- 
tinuators,  the  form  and  divisions  of  the  work  remained  unchanged. 
Between  the  years  467 — 480  (apparently),  Gennadius,  a  priest  of  Mar- 
seilles, brought  out  a  very  useful  continuation  and  completion  of  the 
«De  viris»  1.  He  was  a  Semi-Pelagian,  a  fact  that  is  responsible  for 
occasional  deviations  from  his  usual  impartial  or  objective  attitude. 
Otherwise,  Gennadius  was  an  historian  of  extensive  knowledge,  accurate 
judgment  and  honourable  purpose.  Isidore,  archbishop  of  Seville 
(f  636),  added  considerably  to  the  labours  of  Gennadius 2,  and  his 
disciple  Ildephonsus  of  Toledo  (f  667)  contributed  a  short  appendix 
on  some  Spanish  theologians  3.  Centuries  were  now  to  pass  away  before 
the  Benedictine  chronicler,  Sigebert  of  Gembloux  in  Belgium  (f  1 1 12), 
took  up  the  task  once  more,  and  carried  the  history  of  ecclesiastical 
literature  down  to  his  own  time.  In  his  book  «De  viris  illustribus»  4 
he  treats  first,  «imitatus  Hieronymum  et  Gennadium»,  as  he  himself 
says  (c.  171),  of  the  ancient  ecclesiastical  writers;  and  next  gives 
biographical  and  bibliographical  notes  on  early  mediaeval  Latin  theo- 
logians, usually  slight  and  meagre  in  contents,  and  not  unfrequently 
rather  superficial.  Somewhat  similar  compendia  were  composed  by 
the  priest  Honorius  of  Augustodunum  (Autun?)  between  1122  and 
11255,  by  the  «Anonymus  Mellicensis»,  so  called  from  the  Bene- 
dictine abbey  of  Melk  in  Lower  Austria,  where  the  first  manuscript 
of  his  work  was  found,  though  the  work  itself  was  probably  composed 
in  the  abbey  of  Prüfening  near  Ratisbon  in  1 135  6,  and  by  the  author  of 
a  similarly  entitled  work  wrongly  ascribed  to  the  scholastic  theologian 
Henry  of  Ghent  (f  1293).  These  compilations  were  all  surpassed, 
in  1494,  as  regards  the  number  of  authors  and  the  abundance  of 
information,  by  the  «De  scriptoribus  ecclesiasticis»  of  the  celebrated 
abbot  Johannes  Trithemius  (f  15 16).  It  contains  notices  of  963 
writers,  some  of  whom,  however,  were  not  theologians.  Its  chief 
merit  lies  in  the  information  given  concerning  writers  of  the  later 
period  of  Christian  antiquity.  For  Trithemius,  as  for  his  predecessors, 
St.  Jerome  and  Gennadius  are  the  principal  sources  of  knowledge 
concerning  the  literary  labours  of  the  Fathers. 

These  literary-historical  compilations  are  to  be  found  together  with 
the  work  of  St.  Jerome  (Latin  and  Greek)  in  J.  A.  Fabricius,  Bibliotheca 
ecclesiastica ,  Hamburg,  17 18.  For  the  later  editions  of  Gennadius  by 
Herding,  Bernoulli,  Richardson  see  p.  7 ;  cf.  also  Jungmann,  Quaestiones 
Gennadianae  (Programme),  Lipsiae,  1881 ;  Br.  Czapla,  Gennadius  als  Literar- 
historiker, Münster,  1898  (Kirchengeschichtliche  Studien,  iv.  1);  Fr.  Diekm?ip, 
Wann  hat  Gennadius  seinen  Schriftstellerkatalog  verfaßt  ?  Römische  Quartal- 
schrift für  christliche  Altertumskunde  und  für  Kirchengeschichte,   1898,  xii. 

1  Migne.  PL.,  lviii.    1059 — 1120.  -  Ib.,  lxxxiii.    1081 — 1106. 

3  Ib.,  xevi.    195 — 206.  4  Ib.,   clx.   547 — 588. 

5  De  luminaribus  ecclesiae :  Migne,  PL.,  clxxii.   197 — 234. 

6  De  scriptoribus  ecclesiasticis:  ib.,  ccxiii.  961 — 984. 


§    2.      HISTORY    AND    LITERATURE    OF    PATROLOGY.  9 

411 — 420.  For  the  two  Spanish  historians  of  Christian  literature  cf.  G. 
v.  Dzialowski,  Isidor  und  Ildefons  als  Literarhistoriker,  Münster  (Kirchen- 
geschichtliche Studien,  iv.  2).  For  Sigebert  of  Gembloux  cf.  Wattenbach, 
Deutschlands  Geschichtsquellen  im  Mittelalter,  6.  ed.,  Berlin,  1893 — 1894,  ii. 
155 — 162,  and  for  his  literary-historical  work  S.  Hirsch,  De  vita  et  scriptis 
Sigeberti  monachi  Gemblacensis,  Berolini,  1841,  330 — 337.  There  is  an 
article  by  Stanonik  on  Honorius  of  Augustodunum  in  the  Kirchenlexikon 
of  Wetzer  wad  Weite,  2.  ed.,  vi.  268 — 274.  A  good  edition  of  the  «Anony- 
mus Mellicensis»  was  published  by  E.  Ettlinger,  Karlsruhe,  1896.  For  the 
work  «De  viris  illustrious»  current  under  the  name  of  Henry  of  Ghent  see 
B.  Haureau  in  Memoires  de  l'institut  national  de  France,  Acad,  des  in- 
scriptions et  belles-lettres,  Paris,  1883,  xxx.  2,  349 — 357.  The  work  of  Tri- 
themius  is  discussed  by  J.  Silbemagl,  Johannes  Trithemius,  2.  ed.,  Regens- 
burg,  1885,  pp.   59—65- 

3.  THE  XVI.,  XVII.,  AND  XVIII.  CENTURIES.  Since  the  fifteenth 
century  the  study  of  ecclesiastical  literature  has  made  unexpected 
progress.  The  humanists  brought  to  light  a  multitude  of  unknown 
works  of  Latin,  and  especially  of  Greek  ecclesiastical  writers.  The 
contention  of  the  reformers  that  primitive  Christianity  had  undergone 
a  profound  corruption,  furthered  still  more  the  already  awakened  interest 
in  the  ancient  literature  of  the  Church.  In  the  seventeenth  and 
eighteenth  centuries,  the  Benedictine  scholars  of  the  French  Congrega- 
tion of  St.  Maur  gave  a  powerful  and  lasting  impulse  to  the  move- 
ment by  the  excellent,  and  in  part  classical,  editions  of  texts,  in  which 
they  revealed  to  an  astonished  world  historical  sources  of  almost 
infinite  richness  and  variety.  New  provinces  and  new  purposes  were 
thereby  opened  to  Patrology.  The  Maurists  made  known  at  the 
same  time  the  laws  for  the  historical  study  of  the  original 
sources;  in  nearly  every  department  of  ancient  ecclesiastical  litera- 
ture, it  became  possible  for  scholars  to  strip  the  historical  truth  of 
the  veil  of  legend  that  had  hung  over  it.  It  still  remained  customary 
for  literary  historians,  to  deal  with  the  ancient  ecclesiastical  literature 
as  a  whole.  The  most  distinguished  Catholic  names  in  this  period 
of  patrological  scholarship  are  those  of  Bellarmine  (f  1621),  Dupin 
(f  1 7 19),  Le  Nourry  (f  1724),  Ceillier  (f  1761),  Schräm  (f  1797), 
Lumper  (f  1800).  Among  the  Protestant  patrologists  are  reckoned  the 
Reformed  theologians  Cave  (f  171 3),  and  Oudin  (f  17 17),  a  Premon- 
stratensian  monk  who  became  a  Protestant  in  1690).  The  Lutheran 
writers,  Gerhard  (f  1637),  Hülsemann  (f  1661),  Olearius  (f  171 1),  and 
others  introduced  and  spread  the  use  of  the  term  «Patrology»,  meaning 
thereby  a  comprehensive  view  of  all  Christian  theological  literature 
from  the  earliest  period  to  mediaeval,  and  even  to  modern  times. 

Robertus  Card.  Bellarminus  S.  J.,  De  scriptoribus  ecclesiasticis  liber  unus, 
cum  adiunctis  indicibus  undecim  et  brevi  chronologia  ab  orbe  condito 
usque  ad  annum  1612,  Romae,  161 3;  Coloniae,  161 3,  et  saepius.  L.  E. 
Dupin,  Nouvelle  bibliotheque  des  auteurs  ecclesiastiques ,  Paris,  1686  sq. 
The  several  sections  of  this  extensive  work  appeared  under  different  titles. 
The  number  of  volumes  also  varies  according  to  the  editions.    Because  of 


IO  INTRODUCTION. 

its  very  unecclesiastical  character  the  work  of  Dupin  was  placed  on  the 
Index,  May  10.  1757.  N.  Le  Nourry  O.  S.  B.,  Apparatus  ad  bibliothecam 
maximam  veterum  patrum  et  antiquorum  scriptorum  ecclesiasticorum  Lug- 
duni  (1677)  editam,  2  tomi,  Paris,  1703 — 17 15.  R.  Ceillier  O.  S.  B.,  Histoire 
generale  des  auteurs  sacres  et  ecclesiastiques,  23  vols.,  Paris,  1729 — 1763; 
a  new  edition  was  brought  out  atParis,  1858 — 1869,  16  vols.  D.  Schräm  O.  S.  B., 
Analysis  operum  SS.  Patrum  et  scriptorum  eccl. ,  18  tomi,  Aug.  Vind., 
1780 — 1796.  G.  Lumper  O.  S.  B.,  Historia  theologico-critica  de  vita,  scriptis 
atque  doctrina  SS.  Patrum  aliorumque  scriptorum  eccl.  trium  primorum 
saeculorum,   13  tomi,  Aug.  Vind.,   1783 — 1799. 

G.  Cave,  Scriptorum  ecclesiasticorum  historia  litteraria  a  Christo  nato 
usque  ad  saec.  XIV,  Lond. ,  1688.  C.  Oudin ,  Commentarius  de  scripto- 
ribus  eccles.,  3  tomi,  Lipsiae,   1722. 

Joh.  Gerhardt  Patrologia,  s.  de  primitivae  ecclesiae  christianae  doctorum 
vita  ac  lucubrationibus  opusculum  posthumum,  Jenae,  1653;  3.  ed.,  Gerae, 
1673.  J.  Hülsemann,  Patrologia,  ed.  J,  A.  Scherzer,  Lipsiae,  1670.  J.  G. 
Olearius,  Abacus  patrologicus,  Jenae,  1673.  Idem,  Bibliotheca  scriptorum 
eccles.,   2  tomi,  Jenae,   17 10— 17 n. 

Many  ancient  ecclesiastical  writers  are  treated  at  much  length  by 
L.  S.  le  Nam  de  Tillemont,  Memoires  pour  servir  ä  l'histoire  ecelesiastique  des 
six  premiers  siecles,  16  tomes,  Paris,  1693— 1712,  often  reprinted;  cf.  also 
J.  A.  Fabricius,  Bibliotheca  Graeca  seu  notitia  scriptorum  veterum  Grae- 
corum,  14  voll.,  Hamburgi,  1705 — 1728.  A  new,  but  unfinished  edition  of 
Fabricius  was  published  by  G.  Chr.  Harles,  12  voll.,  Hamburg,  1790 — 1809. 
C.  Tr.  G.  Schoenemann ,  Bibliotheca  historico-literaria  Patrum  latinorum, 
2  tomi,  Lipsiae,   1792 — 1794. 

4.  PATROLOGY  IN  MODERN  TIMES.  During  the  nineteenth  century, 
the  materials  of  ancient  ecclesiastical  literary  history  have  steadily 
increased.  Not  only  have  many  new  Greek  and  Latin  texts  been 
discovered,  notably  by  such  scholars  as  Cardinal  Mai  (f  1854)  and 
Cardinal  Pitra  (f  1889),  but  entirely  new  fields  have  been  thrown 
open,  particularly  in  the  domain  of  the  ancient  Syriac  and  Armenian 
literatures;  the  elaboration  of  this  material  has  called  forth,  especially 
in  Germany,  England,  and  North  America,  a  zeal  that  grows  ever 
more  active  and  general.  Protestant  theologians  paid  particular  atten- 
tion to  the  problems  of  Christian  antiquity,  and  classical  philologians 
learned  to  overcome  their  former  attitude  of  depreciation  of  theo- 
logico-Christian  literature.  The  press  poured  forth  patristic  mono- 
graphs in  such  numbers  that  their  ever-growing  flood  became  at 
times  almost  a  source  of  embarrassment.  Among  the  comprehensive 
works  published  by  Catholic  authors  were  those  of  Möhler  (f  1838), 
Permaneder  (f  1862),  Fessler  (f  1872),  Alzog  (f  1878),  Nirschl,  and 
others.  In  the  latter  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  custom 
arose  of  dividing  the  later  from  the  earlier  Fathers,  and  making 
these  latter  the  subject  of  a  separate  branch  of  literary  and  historical 
study.  Within  the  last  few  years,  Protestant  theologians  have  made 
exhaustive  studies  on  the  writers  of  the  first  three  centuries.  In  the  first 
part  of  his  monumental  work,  Adolf  Harnack  has  presented  with  an 
unexampled  fulness  the  entire  material  of  pre-Eusebian  Christian  literature. 


§    3-      LITERARY    COLLECTIONS.  I  I 

J.  A.  Mahler,  Patrologie  oder  christliche  Literärgeschichte,  edited  by 
F.  X.  Reithmayr ,  vol.  i  (the  first  three  Christian  centuries),  Ratisbon 
1840.  The  work  was  not  continued.  M.  Permaneder,  Bibliotheca  patristica, 
Landishuti,  1841 — 1844,  2  tomi.  J.  Fessler,  Institutiones  Patrologiae,  Inns- 
pruck,  1850 — 185 1,  2  tomi;  denuo  recensuit,  auxit,  edidit  B.  Jungmann,  ib., 
1890 — 1896.  J.  Alzog,  Grundriß  der  Patrologie  oder  der  älteren  christ- 
lichen Literärgeschichte,  Freiburg,  1866,  4.  ed.,  ib.  1888.  J.  Nirschl, 
Lehrbuch  der  Patrologie  und  Patristik,  Mainz,  1881 — 1885,  3  vols. 
J.  Re'zbdnyay ,  Compendium  patrologiae  et  patristicae,  Quinqueecclesiis 
[i.  e.  Fünfkirchen],   1894.     B.  Swete,  Patristic  Study,  London,   1902. 

Ch.  Th,  Cruttwell,  A  literary  history  of  early  Christianity,  including 
the  Fathers  and  the  chief  heretical  writers  of  the  Ante-Nicene  period, 
London,  1893,  2  vols.  A.  Harnack,  Geschichte  der  altchristlichen  Lite- 
ratur bis  auf  Eusebius,  I.  Part :  Die  Überlieferung  und  der  Bestand,  Leipzig, 
1893.  IL  Part:  Die  Chronologie,  1.  vol.:  Die  Chronologie  der  altchrist- 
lichen  Literatur  bis  Irenäus,  Leipzig,  1897;  2.  vol.:  Die  Chronologie  der 
Literatur  von  Irenäus  bis  Eusebius,  ib.,  1904.  G.  Krüger,  Geschichte  der 
altchristlichen  Literatur  in  den  ersten  drei  Jahrhunderten,  Freiburg,  1895  ; 
with  supplement,  1897:  English  transl.  by  Gillet,  History  of  Early  Christian 
Literature,  New  York  and  London,   1897. 

P.  Batiffol,  La  litterature  grecque,  Paris,  1897  (Bibliotheque  de  l'enseigne- 
ment  de  l'histoire  ecclesiastique.  Anciennes  litteratures  chretiennes).  The 
Greek  theologians  of  the  Byzantine  period  (527 — 1453)  are  treated  by  vl  Ehr- 
hard  in  K.  Krumbacher ,  Geschichte  der  byzantinischen  Literatur,  2.  ed., 
Munich,  1897,  pp.  37 — 218.  For  the  Greek  hymnology  of  the  same  period  cf. 
ib.  pp.  653 — 705.  The  histories  of  Roman  literature,  by  Bahr,  Teuffel- 
Schwabe,  and  Schanz,  devote  attention  to  the  Latin  theological  writers: 
y.  Chr.  F.  Bahr,  Geschichte  der  römischen  Literatur,  vol.  iv:  Die  christ- 
lich-römische Literatur,  Karlsruhe,  1836 — 1840;  W.  S.  Teuffei,  Geschichte 
der  römischen  Literatur,  neu  bearbeitet  von  L.  Schwabe,  5.  ed.,  Leipzig,  1890, 
2  vols.;  M.  Schanz,  Geschichte  der  römischen  Literatur,  3.  Part:  Die  Zeit 
von  Hadrian  (117)  bis  auf  Konstantin  (324),  Munich,  1896,  2.  ed.  1905. 
4.  Part,  1.  Half:  Die  Literatur  des  4.  Jahrhunderts,  1904.  Cf.  especially 
A.  Ebert,  Allgemeine  Geschichte  der  Literatur  des  Mittelalters  im  Abend- 
lande, vol.  i:  Geschichte  der  christlich-lateinischen  Literatur  von  ihren  An- 
fängen bis  zum  Zeitalter  Karls  des  Großen,  Leipzig,  1874,  2.  ed.  1889. 
Much  less  satisfactory  is  the  work  of  M.  Manitius ,  Geschiente  der  christlich- 
lateinischen  Poesie  bis  zur  Mitte  des  18.  Jahrhunderts,  Stuttgart,  1891. 
In  the  proper  place  will  be  mentioned  the  descriptions  of  ancient  Syriac 
and  Armenian  literature.  The  work  of  Smith  and  Wace  is  very  useful, 
relatively  complete  and  generally  reliable:  A  Dictionary  of  Christian  Bio- 
graphy, Literature,  Sects  and  Doctrines,  edited  by  IV.  Smith  and  H.  Wace, 
London,  1877 — 1887,  4  vols.  O.  Bardenhewer ,  Geschichte  der  altkirchl. 
Literatur,  I. — II.  torn.:  Bis  zum  Beginn  des  4.  Jahrhunderts,  Freiburg, 
1902 — 1903. 

§  3.    Literary  collections  relative  to  the  Fathers  of  the  Church.    Collective  edi- 
tions of  their  writings.     Principal  collections  of  translations. 

1.  S.  F.  W.  Hoffmann,  Bibliographisches  Lexikon  der  gesamten  Litera- 
tur der  Griechen,  2.  ed.,  Leipzig,  1838 — 1845,  3  vols.  W.  Engelmann, 
Bibliotheca  scriptorum  classicorum,  8.  ed.,  containing  the  literature  from 
1700— 1878,  revised  by  E.  Preuß,  Leipzig,  1880— 1882,  2  vols.  Ulisse 
Chevalier,  Repertoire  des  sources  historiques  du  moyen  age,  vol.  1:  Bio- 
Bibliographie,  Paris,  1877 — 1886,  with  a  supplement,  Paris,  1888,  2.  ed. 
1904.     E.    C.   Richardson,    Bibliographical   synopsis,    in   the    Ante-Nicene 


1 2  INTRODUCTION. 

Fathers,  Supplement,  Buffalo,  ^97 ,  pp.  1  — 136  (see  n.  3).  A.  Ehrhard, 
Die  altchristliche  Literatur  und  ihre  Erforschung  seit  1880.  Allgemeine 
Übersicht  und  erster  Literaturbericht  (1880  — 1884),  Freiburg  (Straßburger 
theol.  Studien  1,  4 — 5).  Id.,  Die  altchristliche  Literatur  und  ihre  Erforschung. 
von  1884  bis  1900.  I:  Die  vornicänische  Literatur,  Freiburg,  1900  (Straß- 
burger theol.  Studien,  Supplem.  I).  Bardenhewer,  Geschichte  der  altkirch- 
lichen Literatur,  Freiburg,  1902 — 1903,  vol.  i — ii.  The  literary  compilations 
descriptive  of  the  Syriac  patristic  literature  are  discussed  in  §  80—83. 

2.  The  principal  editions  of  the  Fathers  are  the  following:  M.  de  la 
Bigne,  Bibliotheca  SS.  Patrum  supra  ducentos,  Paris.,  1575,  8  voll.,  with 
an  appendix,  ib.   1579;  6.  ed.,  ib.   1654,   17  voll. 

Magna  Bibliotheca  veterum  Patrum  et  antiquorum  scriptorum  eccle- 
siasticorum,  opera  et  studio  doctissimorum  in  Alma  Universitate  Colon. 
Agripp.  theologorum  ac  professorum,  Colon.  Agr.,  1618,  14  voll.,  with  a 
Supplementum  vel  appendix,  ib.  1622. 

Fr.  Combefis ,  Graeco-Latinae  Patrum  Bibliothecae  novum  auctarium, 
Paris.,  1648,  2  voll.;  Id.,  Bibliothecae  Graecorum  Patrum  auctarium  no- 
vissimum,  ib.   1672,   2  voll. 

I.  d'Achtry ,  Veterum  aliquot  scriptorum  qui  in  Galliae  bibliothecis, 
maxime  Benedictinorum,  supersunt  Spicilegium,  Paris.,  1655 — 1677,  13  voll.; 
new  edition  by  I.  Fr.  J.  de  la  Barre,  Paris,  1723,  3  voll.  It  has  been 
proved  lately  that  d'Achery  included,  in  good  faith,  several  documents 
forged  by  the  Oratorian  Jtrönie  Vignier  (f  1661);  the  proof  is  clearest  for 
just  those  pieces  that  were  held  to  be  the  special  pride  of  the  collection. 
Cf.  J.  Havet,  Les  decouvertes  de  Jerome  Vignier :  Bibliotheque  de  l'ßcole 
des  Chartes,  Paris,   1885,  xlvi.  205 — 271. 

Maxima  Bibliotheca  veterum  Patrum  antiquorumque  ecclesiae  scripto- 
rum, Lugduni,   1677,  27  voll. 

J.  B.  Cotelier,  Ecclesiae  Graecae  monumenta,  Paris  1677 — 1686,  3  voll. 
In  some  copies  the  Analecta  Graeca  of  B.  de  Montfaucon  (Paris,  1688) 
are  called  the  fourth  volume  of  the  Cotelier  collection. 

A.  Gallandi,  Bibliotheca  veterum  Patrum  antiquorumque  scriptorum 
ecclesiasticorum,  Veneths,  1765  — 1781  et  1788,  14  voll.  Index  alphabeticus 
Bibliothecae  Gallandii,  Bononiae,   1863. 

M.  J.  Routh,  Reliquiae  Sacrae  seu  Auctorum  fere  jam  perditorum  se- 
cundi  tertiique  saeculi  fragmenta  quae  supersunt.  Accedunt  epistolae  syn- 
odicae  et  canonicae  Nicaeno  concilio  antiquiores,  Oxonii,  1814 — 1818,  4  voll., 
ed.  altera,   1846 — 1848,  5  voll. 

A.  Mai,  Scriptorum  veterum  nova  Collectio  e  Vaticanis  codicibus 
edita,  Romae,  1825 — 1838,  10  voll.  Id.,  Classici  auctores  e  Vaticanis  co- 
dicibus editi,  ib.  1828 — 1838,  10  voll.  Id.,  Spicilegium  Romanum,  ib. 
1839— 1844,  10  voll.  Id. ,  Nova  Patrum  Bibliotheca,  ib.  1844 — 1854, 
7  voll.;  torn,  viii — ix,  ed.  J.  Cozza-Iuzi,  ib.   187 1 — 1888. 

Patrologiae  cursus  completus.  Accurante  jf.  P.  Migne,  Paris.,  1844  ad 
1866.  It  consists  of  a  Greek  and  a  Latin  series.  The  Latin  Fathers  were 
published  between  1844  and  1855,  and  come  down  to  Innocent  III. 
(f  1216),  in  217  vols.,  with  Indices  in  four  vols.  (218 — 221).  The  Greek 
Fathers  were  published  from  1857  to  1866  and  reach  to  the  Council  of 
Florence  (1438 — 1439).  The  latter  series  is  without  Indices.  D.  Scholarios 
published  at  Athens,  1879,  a  Catalogue  of  the  Greek  writings  in  the  Migne 
edition,  and  of  those  in  the  Corpus  scriptorum  historiae  Byzantinae  (Bonn, 
1828 — 1855,  48  vols.),  also  some  fascicules  of  a  broadly  conceived  index 
to  both  these  series  of  Greek  writers,  Athens,  1883 — 1887.  A  short  catalogue 
of  the  authors  printed  in  the  Migne  series  of  Greek  Fathers  may  be  found 
in  A.  Potthast,  Bibliotheca  historica  medii  aevi,  2.  ed.,  Berlin,  1896,  ci — cvi. 


§    3-     LITERARY    COLLECTIONS.  1 3 

y.  B.  Pitra,  Spicilegium  Solesmense  complectens  SS.  Patrum  scripto- 
rumque  ecclesiasticorum  anecdota  hactenus  opera,  Paris,  1852 — 1858,  4  voll. 
Id.,  Juris  ecclesiastici  Graecorum  historia  et  monumenta,  Romae,  1864 — 1868, 
2  voll.  Id.,  Analecta  sacra  Spicilegio  Solesmensi  parata,  Paris,  1876 — 1891, 
6  voll.  Id.,  Analecta  sacra  et  classica  Spicil.  Solesm.  parata,  ib.  1888.  His 
Analecta  novissima  (ib.  1885 — 1888,  2  voll.)  contain,  with  the  exception 
of  some  papal  letters  in  the  first  volume,  only  mediaeval  documents. 

Corpus  scriptorum  ecclesiasticorum  latinorum ,  editum  consilio  et  im- 
pensis  Academiae  Litterarum  Caesareae  Vindobonensis,   1866  sqq. 

SS.  Patrum  opuscula  selecta  ad  usum  praesertim  studiosorum  theologiae. 
Edidit  et  commentariis  auxit  H.  Hurter  S.J.,  Innspruck,  1868 — 1885,  48  voll. 
Most  of  the  volumes  went  through  several  editions.  Series  altera,  ib. 
1884— 1892,  6  voll. 

Monumenta  Germaniae  historica.  Inde  ab  anno  Christi  quingentesimo 
usque  ad  annum  millesimum  et  quingentesimum  edidit  Societas  aperiendis 
fontibus  rerum  Germanicarum  medii  aevi.  Auctores  antiquissimi ,  Berol. 
1877 — 1898,  13  voll.  This  section  of  the  Monumenta,  formerly  edited  by 
Mommsen ,  includes  the  Latin  writers  of  the  transition  period  from  the 
Roman  to  the  Teutonic  era. 

Sammlung  ausgewählter  kirchen-  und  dogmengeschichtlicher  Quellen- 
schriften, als  Grundlage  für  Seminarübungen  herausgegeben  unter  Leitung 
von  G.  Krüger,  Freiburg,   1891  sq. 

G.  Rauschen,  Florilegium  patristicum.  Digessit,  vertit,  adnotavit  G.  R. 
Fase,  i:  Monumenta  aevi  apostolici.  Fase,  ii:  S.  Justini  apologiae  duae. 
Fase,  iii:  Monumenta  minora  saeculi  seeundi.     Bonnae,   1904 — 1905. 

Die  griechischen  christlichen  Schriftsteller  der  ersten  drei  Jahrhunderte, 
herausgegeben  von  der  Kirchenväter-Kommission  der  königl.  preußischen 
Akademie  der  Wissenschaften,  Leipzig  1897  ff. 

Two  editions  now  in  progress  of  select  works  by  Fathers  may  be 
mentioned.  One  is  the  «Cambridge  Patristic  Texts».  Of  this  series  two 
volumes  have  appeared,  viz. :  «The  five  Theological  Orations  of  Gregory 
of  Nazianzus«  ,  ed.  Mason,  1899;  «The  Catechetical  Oration  of  Gregory 
of  Nyssa»,  ed.  Srawley,  1903.  «The  Letters  and  other  Remains  of  Dio- 
nysius  of  Alexandria»,  ed.  Feltre,   1904. 

The  other  collection  is  «Bibliotheca  Sanctorum  Patrum,  theologiae 
tironibus  et  universo  clero  accommodata»,  Vizzini  etc.,  Romae,  1901  sqq. 
Thirteen  vols,  of  this  series  have  been  issued.  It  should  be  observed  that 
in  it  all  Greek  works  are  accompanied  by  a  Latin  translation. 

For  more  detailed  information  as  to  the  contents  of  the  older  collec- 
tive editions  of  the  Fathers  cf.  Th.  Ittig,  De  Bibliothecis  et  Catenis  Patrum 
variisque  veterum  scriptorum  ecclesiasticorum  collectionibus,  Lipsiae,  1707. 
J.  G.  Dowling,  Notitia  scriptorum  SS.  Patrum  aliorumque  veteris  ecclesiae 
monumentorum,  quae  in  collectionibus  Anecdotorum  post  a.  Chr.  1700  in 
lucem  editis  continentur,  Oxonii,  1839.  The  collective  editions  of  the 
Syriac  Fathers  are  described  in  §§  80 — 83. 

3.  COLLECTIONS  OF  TRANSLATIONS.  Among  the  principal  col- 
lections of  translations  the  following  deserve  mention : 

Bibliothek  der  Kirchenväter.  Auswahl  der  vorzüglichsten  patristischen 
Werke  in  deutscher  Übersetzung  unter  der  Oberleitung  von  Fr.  X.  Reith- 
mayr,  fortgesetzt  von  B.   Thalhof  er,  Kempten,   i860— 1888,  80  voll. 

Library  of  the  Fathers,  edited  by  Pusey,  Keble  and  Newman,  Oxford, 
1838 — 1888,  45  voll.  The  Ante-Nicene  Christian  Library.  Translations  of 
the  writings  of  the  Fathers  down  to  A.  D.  325,  edited  by  A.  Roberts  and 


14  INTRODUCTION. 

J.  Donaldson,  Edinburgh,  1866— 1872,  24  voll.,  with  a  supplementary  volume, 
ed.  by  A.  Menzies,  ib.  1897.  This  collection  of  translations  was  reprinted 
at  Buffalo,  1884 — 1886,  under  the  direction  of  A.  Cleveland  Coxe,  8  voll, 
with  a  supplement,  1887  (New  York,  1896,  10  voll).  For  the  bibliography 
of  English  translations  of  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  see  Ernest  C.  Richardson 
(ib.  vol.  x) :  Bibliographical  Synopsis,  passim. 

Ph.  Schaff  and  H.  Wace,  A  select  Library  of  Nicene  and  Post-Nicene 
Fathers  of  the  Christian  Church.  In  connection  with  a  number  of  patristic 
scholars  of  Europe  and  America.  Buffalo  and  New  York,  1886 — 1890, 
14  voll.     Second  Series,  New  York,   i89osq. 


FIRST  PERIOD. 

FROM  THE  END  OF  THE  FIRST  TO  THE  BEGINNING 
OF  THE  FOURTH  CENTURY. 

FIRST  SECTION. 

PRIMITIVE  ECCLESIASTICAL  LITERATURE. 

§  4.  Preliminary  Remarks. 

The  primitive  Christians  were  in  general  disinclined  to  literary 
composition.  The  Gospel  was  preached  to  the  poor  (Mt.  11,  5),  and 
»not  in  the  persuasive  words  of  human  wisdom,  but  in  shewing  of  the 
spirit  and  power»  (1  Cor.  2,  4).  The  Apostles  wrote  only  under  the 
pressure  of  external  circumstances;  even  in  later  times  living  oral  in- 
struction remained  the  regular  means  of  transmission  and  propagation 
of  the  Christian  truth. 

Apart  from  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  we  possess  but  very 
few  literary  remains  of  the  apostolic  and  sub-apostolic  period.  Among 
the  most  ancient  are  the  Apostles'  Creed,  and  the  «Doctrine  of  the 
Twelve  Apostles»  discovered  in  1883;  both  owe  their  origin  to  the 
practical  needs  of  the  primitive  Christian  communities.  There  are, 
moreover,  some  Letters,  at  once  the  outcome  of  the  pastoral  zeal  of 
the  ecclesiastical  authorities  and  echoes  of  the  apostolic  Epistles. 

The  authors  of  these  Letters,  and  a  few  other  ecclesiastical  writers 
of  the  second  century,  are  usually  known  as  the  Apostolic  Fathers. 
J.  B.  Cotelier  (f  1686)  was  the  first  to  give  the  title  of  «Patres 
aevi  apostolici»  to  the  author  of  the  so-called  Epistle  of  Barnabas, 
Clement  of  Rome,  Hermas,  Ignatius  of  Antioch,  and  Polycarp.  Later 
on  Papias  of  Hierapolis  and  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus 
were  included  in  the  series.  There  is  really  no  intimate  relationship 
between  these  writings.  The  work  of  Hermas  is  an  exhortation  to 
penance  in  the  shape  of  a  vision.  Of  the  work  of  Papias  only  meagre 
fragments  have  reached  us,  quite  useless  for  any  clear  intelligence 
of  its  original  form ;  while  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus,  in 
view  of  its  tendency  and  form ,  more  properly  belongs  to  the 
apologists. 

Among  the  collective  editions  of  the  writings  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers 
the  following  are  the  most  important.    Patres  aevi  apostolici  sive  SS.  Patrum, 


1 6  FIRST    PERIOD.      FIRST    SECTION. 

qui  temporibus  apostolicis  floruerunt,  Barnabae,  dementis  Rom.,  Hermae, 
Ignatii,  Polycarpi,  opera  edita  et  inedita,  vera  et  supposititia ,  una  cum 
dementis,  Ignatii  et  Polycarpi  actis  atque  martyriis.  Ex  mss.  codicibus 
eruit,  correxit  versionibusque  et  notis  illustravit  J.  B.  Cotelerius,  Paris.,  1672, 
2  vol.  A  new  edition  was  issued  by  J.  Clericus ,  Antwerp,  1698,  and 
Amsterdam,  1724,  and  was  reprinted,  with  the  fragments  ofPapias  and  the 
Epistle  to  Diognetus  added,  in  Gallandi,  Bibl.  vet.  Pair.,  1 — in,  Venetiis, 
1765 — 1767;  also  in  Migne,  PG.  i.  n  v,  Paris.,  1857.  —  Opera  Patrum 
apostolicorum  ed.  C.  J.  Hefele,  Tübingen,  1839,  4-  e^-  1855.  Opp.  Patr. 
apostol. ,  textum  recensuit ,  adnotationibus  criticis,  exegeticis,  historicis  il- 
lustravit, versionem  latinam,  prolegomena,  indices  addidit  F.  X.  Funk.  Ed. 
post  Hefelianam  quartam  quinta.  Vol.  i:  Epistulae  Barnabae,  dementis 
Romani,  Ignatii,  Polycarpi,  Anonymi  ad  Diognetum,  Ignatii  et  Polycarpi 
martyria,  Pastor  Hermae,  Tübingen,  1878;  ed.  nova  Doctrina  duodecim 
Apostolorum  adaucta.  1887.  Vol.  ii:  Clementis  R.  epistulae  de  virginitate 
eiusdemque  martyrium,  epistulae  PseudoTgnatii,  Ignatii  martyria  tria  .  .  ., 
Papiae  et  seniorum  apud  Irenaeum  fragmenta,  Polycarpi  vita,  1881.  A 
second  edition  of  Funk's  work  appeared  at  Tübingen  1901,  2  voll.  (Patres 
Apostolici,  i:  Doctrina  duodecim  Apostolorum,  Epistulae  Barnabae,  Cle- 
mentis Romani,  Ignatii,  Polycarpi  huiusque  martyrium,  Papiae,  Quadrati, 
presbyterorum  apud  Irenaeum  fragmenta,  Epistola  ad  Diognetum,  Pastor 
Hermae;  ii:  dementis  Romani  epistulae  de  virginitate  eiusdemque  mar- 
tyrium, Epistulae  PseudoTgnatii,  Ignatii  martyria,  fragmenta  Polycarpiana, 
Polycarpi  vita).  F.  X.  Fu?ik ,  Die  apostolischen  Väter  (Sammlung  aus- 
gewählter kirchen-  und  dogmengeschichtl.  Quellenschriften,  ed.  Krüger, 
2.  series  I),  Tübingen,  1901.  —  Patrum  apostolicorum  opera  ed.  A.  R.  M. 
Dressel,  Lipsiae,  1857,  2.  ed.  1863.  —  Patrum  apostol.  opera,  textum  recen- 
suerunt,  commentario  exeg.  et  histor.  illustraverunt ,  apparatu  critico,  ver- 
sione  lat.,  prolegg. ,  indicibus  instruxerunt  O.  de  Gebhardt ,  Ad.  Harnack, 
Th.  Zahn,  ed.  post  Dresselianam  alteram  tertia.  Fase,  i :  Barnabae  epist. 
Graece  et  Lat.,  Clementis  R.  epp.  recens.  atque  illustr.,  Papiae  quae  super- 
sunt,  Presbyterorum  reliquias  ab  Irenaeo  servatas,  vetus  Ecclesiae  Rom. 
symbolum,  ep.  ad  Diognetum  adiecerunt  O.  de  Gebhardt  et  Ad.  Harnack, 
Lipsiae,  1875.  Fase,  i,  part,  i,  2.  ed.:  Clementis  R.  epp.,  textum  ad  fidem 
codicum  et  Alexandrini  et  Constantinopolitani  nuper  inventi  rec.  et  ill. 
O.  de  Gebhardt  et  Ad.  Harnack,  1876.  Fase,  i,  part,  ii,  2.  ed.:  Barnabae 
epist.,  Papiae  quae  supersunt  etc.  adiec.  O.  de  Gebhardt  et  Ad.  Harnack, 
1878.  Fase.  II:  Ignatii  et  Polycarpi  epistulae,  martyria,  fragmenta  rec.  et 
ill.  Th.  Zahn,  1876.  Fase,  iii:  Hermae  Pastor  graece,  addita  versione 
latina  recentiore  e  cod.  Palatino,  rec.  et  ill.  O.  de  Gebhardt  et  Ad.  Harnack, 
1877  (Patrum  apostol.  opp.  rec.  O.  de  Gebhardt,  Ad.  Harnack  et  Th.  Zahn, 
ed.  minor,  Lipsiae,  1877,  1894,  1900,  1902).  —  Novum  Testamentum  extra 
canonem  reeeptum  (I.  Clemens  R.,  II.  Barnabas,  III.  Hermas.  IV.  Evangelio- 
rum  sec.  Hebraeos,  sec.  Petrum,  sec.  Aegyptios,  Matthiae  traditionum,  Petri 
et  Pauli  praedicationis  et  actuum,  Petri  Apocalypseos  etc.  quae  supersunt), 
ed.  Ad.  Hilgenfeld,  Lipsiae,  1866,  2.  ed.  1876 — 1884.  —  S.  Clement  of 
Rome.  The  two  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians.  A  revised  text  with  intro- 
duction and  notes.  By  J.  B.  Lightfoot,  Cambridge,  1869.  S.  Clement  of 
Rome.  An  Appendix  containing  the  newly  recovered  portions.  With  intro- 
ductions, notes  and  translations.  By  J.  B.  Lightfoot,  London,  1877.  The 
Apostolic  Fathers.  Part  ii:  St.  Ignatius,  St.  Polycarp.  Revised  texts  with 
introductions,  notes,  dissertations  and  translations.  By  J.  B.  Lightfoot, 
London,  1885,  3  voll.,  2.  ed.  1889.  The  Apostolic  Fathers.  Part,  i:  St.  Cle- 
ment of  Rome.  A  revised  text  with  introductions,  notes,  dissertations  and 
translations      By   the   late  J.  B.  Lightfoot,    London,   1890,    2  voll.     (The 


§    5-      THE    APOSTLES'    CREED    (SYMBOLUM    APOSTOLICURl).  1 7 

Apostolic  Fathers,  text  and  translation,  by  Lightfoot  and  Harmer,  i  vol., 
London,   1890.) 

German  translations  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers  were  made  by  Fr.  X. 
Karker,  Breslau,  1847  ;  H.  Scholz,  Gütersloh,  1865  ;  J.  Chr.  Mayer,  Kempten, 
1869,  with  supplement  containing  the  newly  discovered  fragments  of  the 
so-called  Two  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  Kempten  1880  (Bibliothek  der 
Kirchenväter).  The  Apostolic  Fathers  were  translated  into  English  by 
J.  Donaldson  (The  Ante-Nicene  Christian  Library,  vol.  i,  Edinburgh, 
1866);  Ch.  H.  Hoole,  London,  1872;  Dr.  Burton,  ib.   1888— 1889. 

Among  the  writers  on  the  Apostolic  Fathers  are :  Ad.  Hilgenfeld,  Die 
Apostolischen  Väter,  Untersuchungen  über  Inhalt  und  Ursprung  der  unter 
ihrem  Namen  erhaltenen  Schriften,  Halle  1853.  Ch.  E.  Freppel ,  Les 
Peres  apostoliques  et  leur  epoque,  Paris  1859.  4.  ed.  1885.  J.  Donaldson, 
A  Critical  History  of  Christian  Literature  and  Doctrine  from  the  death 
of  the  Apostles  to  the  Nicene  Council.  Vol.  i:  The  Apostolical  Fathers, 
London,  1864,  2.  ed.  1874.  C.  Skivorzow,  Patrologische  Untersuchungen. 
Über  Ursprung  der  problematischen  Schriften  der  Apostolischen  Väter,  Leipzig, 
1875.     J'  Sprmzl,  Die  Theologie  der  Apostolischen  Väter,  Wien,   1880. 

§  5.    The  Apostles'  Creed  (Symbolum  Apostolicum). 

1.  THE  TEXT.  According  to  an  ancient  tradition1  the  Apostles' 
Creed,  i.  e.  the  baptismal  profession  of  faith  of  the  Roman  liturgy, 
is  of  apostolic  origin,  not  only  in  contents,  but  textually.  The  subject 
of  this  tradition  is  not,  however,  the  Creed  in  its  present  form,  but 
in  a  much  older  one,  whereof  the  text,  both  in  Greek  and  Latin,  can 
be  reconstructed  with  almost  absolute  certainty.  The  oldest  authority 
for  the  Greek  text  is  a  letter  of  Marcellus,  bishop  of  Ancyra,  to 
Pope  Julius  I.,  written  in  337  or  338  s.  The  Latin  text  is  first 
met  with  in  the  commentary  on  the  Creed  written  by  Rufinus  of 
Aquileia  (f  410).  The  Latin  text  is  certainly  a  translation  from  the 
Greek.  The  extant  text  of  the  Creed  differs  from  these  ancient 
texts  chietly  by  reason  of  a  few  not  very  important  additions 
(descendit  ad  inferos,  sanctorum  communionem,  vitant  aeternam). 
The  circumstances  under  which  the  present  text  came  into  use  are 
shrouded  in  obscurity;  it  is  first  met  with  in  Southern  Gaul  about 
the  middle  of  the  fifth  century. 

2.  ITS  ANTIQUITY.  Caspari  has  demonstrated,  by  profound  and 
extensive  researches,  that  the  ancient  baptismal  creed  of  the  Ro- 
man Church  is  the  common  basis  and  root  of  all  the  primitive 
baptismal  creeds  of  the  West.  Following  in  his  footsteps,  Katten- 
busch  holds  that  the  Roman  creed  was  also  the  archetype  of  all 
Eastern  creeds  or  symbols  of  faith.  Tertullian  expressly  asserts  that 
the  African  Church  received  its  baptismal  creed  from  Rome3.  He 
outlines  frequently  what  he  calls  a  Rule  of  Faith  4,  i.  e.  a  sketch  of  the 

1  Tradunt  maiores  nostri,  Rufinus,  Comm.  in  Symb.  apost,  c.   2. 

2  Epiph.,  Haeres.   72,   2—3.  3  De  praescr.  haeret.,  c.  36. 

4  Regula  fidei,  lex  fidei,  regula.  Cf.  De  praescr.  haeret,,  c.  13;  De  virgin,  vel. 
c.   1  ;  Adv.  Prax.,  c.   2. 

Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  2 


1 8  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

universally  taught  ecclesiastical  belief;  it  is  simply  a  paraphrase  of 
the  Old-Roman  baptismal  creed.  It  was  a  baptismal  creed  that  served 
Irenaeus  as  a  criterion  in  his  description  of  «the  faith,  that  the  Church 
scattered  through  the  whole  world  had  received  from  the  Apostles 
and  their  disciples» 1.  If  the  creed  he  describes  be  not  that  of  the 
Roman  Church,  it  is  surely  one  that  resembled  it  very  much.  The 
writings  of  St.  Justin  show  that  in  the  first  half  of  the  second  century 
the  Roman  Church  possessed  a  fixed  and  definite  baptismal  creed2. 
We  possess  no  historical  authorities  older  than  those  mentioned. 

3.  APOSTOLIC  ORIGIN  OF  THE  CREED.  It  is  certain  that  the  con- 
tents of  the  Old-Roman  Creed  are  apostolic,  i.  e.  it  reproduces  in  an 
exact  and  reliable  way  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles.  From  what  has 
been  said  in  the  preceding  paragraph  it  will  be  seen  that  it  is  not 
possible  to  demonstrate  the  traditional  belief  in  the  apostolic  origin 
of  its  phraseology;  on  the  other  hand  it  is  still  more  difficult  to 
overthrow  the  same.  All  objections  to  the  contrary  repose  on 
untenable  historico-dogmatic  hypotheses.  It  is  certain,  on  the  one 
hand,  that  from  the  earliest  days  of  the  Church  the  need  of  some 
kind  of  a  profession  of  Christian  faith  before  the  reception  of  baptism 
was  felt;  the  convert  must  in  some  way  express  his  faith  in  the 
fundamental  facts  and  doctrines  of  Christianity 3.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  must  be  admitted,  with  Caspari,  that  the  ancient  Roman  Creed 
«with  its  primitive  seventy,  its  extreme  simplicity  and  brevity,  its  highly 
lapidary  style,  impresses  us  as  a  document  that  has  come  down,  word 
for  word,  from  the  most  remote  Christian  antiquity». 

4.  LITERATURE.  The  traditional  forms  or  recensions  of  the  Apostles' 
Creed  are  collected  in 

H  Denzinger,  Enchiridion  symbolorum  et  definitionum,  9.  ed.,  aucta 
et  emendata  ab  J.  Stahl,  Freiburg,  1900,  pp.  1 — 8;  with  greater  fulness  in 
A.  Hahn,  Bibliothek  der  Symbole  und  Glaubensregeln  der  alten  Kirche, 
3.  ed.  by  G.  L.  Hahn,  Breslau,  1897,  pp.  22  f.  All  modern  investigations 
of  the  ancient  baptismal  creed  of  the  Church  date  from  the  fundamental 
labours  of  Caspari  (f  1892):  C.  P.  Caspari,  Ungedruckte,  unbeachtete  und 
wenig  beachtete  Quellen  zur  Geschichte  des  Taufsymbols  und  der  Glau- 
bensregel, Christiania,  1866 — 1875,  3  vols.  Id.,  Alte  und  neue  Quellen  zur 
Geschichte  des  Taufsymbols  und  der  Glaubensregel,  ib.   1879. 

Kattenbusch  availed  Himself  of  the  scholarly  work  of  Caspari:  F.  Katten- 
busch,  Das  Apostolische  Symbol,  seine  Entstehung,  sein  geschichtlicher  Sinn, 
seine  ursprüngliche  Stellung  im  Kultus  und  in  der  Theologie  der  Kirche. 
Vol.  i:  Die  Grundgestalt  des  Taufsymbols,  Leipzig,  1894.  Vol.  ii:  Verbreitung 
und  Bedeutung  des  Taufsymbols,  1897 — 1900.  Cf.  also  M.  Nicolas ,  Le 
symbole  des  Apotres.  Essai  histor.  Paris,  1867.  C.  A.  Heurtley ,  A  His- 
tory of  the  Earlier  Formularies  of  Faith  of  the  Western  and  Eastern 
Churches,  London,  1892.  We  can  cite  but  a  few  of  the  writings  called  forth 
in  Germany  since  1892  by  the  «Kampf  um  das  Apostolikum»,  a  conflict 
that   centred   rather  about   the  contents  than  about  the  text  of  the  Creed. 

1  Adv.  haer.,  i.    10,    11;   cf.   iii.   4,    1 — 2;   iv.   33,   7. 

2  Apol.,  i.  61.  3  Acts  viii.  37;  cf.  Mk.  xvi.    16. 


§    6.     THE    DIDACHE    OR    TEACHING    OF   THE   TWELVE    APOSTLES.  1 9 

The  chief  opponent  of  the  «Apostolikum»  was  A.  Harnack ,  Das 
Apostolische  Glaubensbekenntnis,  Berlin,  1892,  25.  ed.  1894.  Among  its 
Protestant  defenders  Th.  Zahn,  Das  Apostolische  Symbolum,  Erlangen, 
1893,  2.  ed.,  was  easily  prominent.  Catholic  scholarship  was  represented  by 
S.  Bäumer,  Das  Apostolische  Glaubensbekenntnis,  Mainz,  1893,  and  C.  Blume, 
Das  Apostolische  Glaubensbekenntnis,  Freiburg,  1893.  Cf.  B.  Dörholt,  Das 
Taufsymbolum  der  alten  Kirche  nach  Ursprung  und  Entwicklung.  Part  i : 
Geschichte  der  Symbolforschung,  Paderborn,  1898.  Cf.  also  J.  Kunze, 
Glaubensregel,  Heilige  Schrift  und  Taufbekenntnis,  Leipzig,  1899.  Other 
writers  on  the  Apostles'  Creed  are  O.  Scheel  in  Getting.  Gelehrten  Anzeigen, 
1901,  clxii.  835 — 864,  913  —  948;  A.  A.  Hopkins,  The  Apostles'  Creed, 
a  Discussion,  New  York,  1900.  We  may  also  note  the  discussion  between 
Dom  Fr.  Chamand  and  A.  Vacandard  in  the  Revue  des  questions  histo- 
riques,  for  1901.  W.  Sanday ,  Further  Research  on  the  History  of  the 
Creed,  in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1901),  iii.  1 — 21.  G.  Semeria,  II  Credo 
in  Studi  Religiosi  1902,  ii.  1 — 21,  and  in  Dogma,  Gerarchia  e  Culto 
nella  Chiesa  primitiva,  Rome,  1902,  315 — 336;  G.  Voisin,  L'origine  du 
Symbole  des  Apotres,  in  Revue  d'hist.  eccles.,  1902,  iii.  297 — 323;  A.  C. 
McGiffert,  The  Apostles'  Creed,  its  Origin,  its  Purpose  and  its  Historical 
Interpretation,  London,  1902 ;  W.  W.  Bishop,  The  Eastern  Creeds  and  the 
Old  Roman  Symbol  in  American  Journal  of  Theology,  1902,  518—528; 
A.  G.  Mortimer,  The  Creeds,  an  Historical  and  Doctrinal  Exposition  of 
the  Apostles',  Nicene,  and  Athanasian  Creeds,  London,  1902;  A.  Cusham, 
The  Apostles'  Creed,  its  Origin,  its  Purpose,  and  its  Historical  Inter- 
pretation, Edinburg,  1903 ;  V.  Ermoni,  Histoire  du  Credo,  le  Symbole  des 
Apotres,  Paris,  1903 ;  D.  F.  Weigernd,  Das  Apostolische  Symbol  im  Mittel- 
alter, eine  Skizze,  Gießen,  1904.  Burn,  The  Textus  Receptus  of  the 
Apostles'  Creed,  in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1902),  iii.  481 — 500. 

§  6.    The  Didache  or  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles. 

I .  ITS  CONTENTS.  This  is  the  title  of  one  of  the  oldest  documents 
of  Christian  antiquity,  discovered  in  1883  by  Philotheos  Bryennios. 
In  the  only  manuscript  yet  known,  written  in  1056,  the  little  work 
is  called  Atdayrq  xopiou  diä  rcov  dwdsxa  dnoaroXwD  toIq  iäveerw,  while 
in  the  table  of  contents  it  is  simply  Atdayrj  zwv  dwdsxa  airooroXajv. 
The  former  is  not  only  an  older  title  than  the  latter,  but  is  most 
probably  the  original.  By  it  the  anonymous  author  meant  to  suggest 
a  compendious  presentation  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  Christ  as 
preached  to  the  gentiles  by  the  Apostles.  In  length  it  about 
equals  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  and  is  divided  into  two  parts. 
The  first  (cc.  1  — 10)  contains  an  ecclesiastical  ritual.  In  it  are  found 
instruction  in  Christian  ethics  (cc.  1 — 6),  in  the  shape  of  the  descrip- 
tion of  the  Two  Ways,  the  Way  of  Life  (cc.  1 — 4)  and  the  Way  of 
Death  (c.  5).  This  is  expressly  set  forth  as  a  guide  for  the  instruc- 
tion of  those  who  seek  baptism  (c.  7,  1).  The  author  then  treats  of 
baptism  (c.  7),  of  fasting  and  prayer  (c.  8),  and  of  the  Blessed  Eu- 
charist (cc.  9—10).  These  liturgical  precepts  are  completed  in  the 
second  part  by  instruction  concerning  the  mutual  relations  of  the 
Christian  communities  (the  scrutiny  of  wandering  Christian  teachers, 
aTrooToXoi  xac  7Tf)o<prjzac,  c.  1 1,  the  reception  of  travelling  brethren   c.  13, 

2* 


20  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

the  support  of  prophets  and  teachers  who  settle  in  the  community, 
c.  13),  the  religious  life  of  each  community,  e.  g.  divine  service  on 
Sundays  (c.  14),  and  the  superiors  of  the  communities,  etlioxotzol  xac 
didxovoi  (c.  15,  1 — 2).  The  work  closes  with  a  warning  to  be 
vigilant,  for  the  last  day  is  at  hand. 

2.  TIME  AND  PLACE  OF  COMPOSITION.  It  was  probably  composed 
in  the  last  decades  of  the  first  century,  most  likely  in  Syria  or  Palestine. 
It  is  undoubtedly  of  the  highest  antiquity;  one  meets  no  longer  in 
the  second  Christian  century  with  such  conditions  as  are  taken  for 
granted  in  its  references  to  the  rite  of  baptism  (c.  7),  of  the  Blessed 
Eucharist  (cc.  9 — 10),  the  ministers  of  the  divine  mysteries  (knloxonoi 
xa\  dtdxovot,  c.  15,  i),  and  the  ministers  of  the  divine  word  {anoaxoXot 
xac  7ipo(pYjvat,  c.  II,  3).  The  description  of  the  Ways  of  Life  and 
Death  is  so  strikingly  similar  to  that  of  the  Ways  of  Light  and 
Darkness  in  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas  (cc.  1 8 — 20),  itself  probably  com- 
posed at  the  end  of  the  first  century,  that  one  of  these  two  authors 
must  have  copied  from  the  other,  or  both  must  have  used  a  common 
original.  Apart  from  this  latter  hypothesis,  Funk,  Zahn,  and  Schaff 
have  shown,  as  against  Bryennios,  Harnack,  Volkmar  and  others,  that 
in  all  probability  it  is  not  the  Didache  which  is  dependent  on  the  Epistle 
to  Barnabas,  but  the  contrary.  An  older  model  is  not  to  be 
postulated.  Especially,  is  there  no  good  reason  for  subscribing  to  the 
hypothesis  of  Harnack,  Taylor,  Savi  and  others,  that  the  basis  of  the 
first  chapters  of  the  Didache  is  a  Jewish  work,  some  ancient  cate- 
chism for  proselytes.  On  the  one  hand,  the  existence  of  such  a 
work  is  purely  hypothetical,  and  on  the  other,  the  first  chapters  of 
the  Didache  exhibit  a  specific  Christian  character  by  reason  of  the 
many  phrases,  turns  of  thought  and  reminiscences  that  they  borrow 
from  the  New  Testament.  Nor  is  there  any  sufficient  reason  to  adopt 
the  hypothesis  of  a  still  older  Christian  Didache  (Urdidache)  that 
was  improved  and  enlarged  in  the  work  before  us.  With  some  ex- 
ceptions (cc.  1,  3 — 2,  1)  the  extant  manuscript  of  the  Didache  re- 
presents, quite  probably,  its  original  form. 

3.  ITS  HISTORY.  In  some  of  the  churches  of  the  East,  particularly 
those  of  Egypt,  Syria,  and  Palestine,  the  Didache  was  once  highly 
esteemed.  Clement  of  Alexandria  cites  it  as  «Scripture»  \\  Athanasius 
places  it  among  writings  suitable  for  catechumens  alongside  with  some 
books  of  the  Old  Testament 2 ;  Eusebius  places  it  among  the  apocrypha 
of  the  New  Testament,  i.  e.  among  those  books  that  had  wrongly  been 
placed  by  some  in  the  canon3.  The  so-called  Apostolic  Church- 
Ordinance,  composed  probably  toward  the  end  of  the  third  century 
in  Egypt,  contains  (cc.  4 — 14)  a  description  of  the  Two  Ways,  or  rather 

1  uxo  ty]Q  ypatp^q  separat:  Strom.,  i.   20,    100. 

2  Atdayrj  xakoußivr)  twi>  änoorokwv:  Ep.  festal,   39. 

3  ribv  d.Tzoax6lwv  at  Xs.yoiJ.zvat  dtda%ai:  Hist,  eccl.,   iii.   25,   4. 


§    6.      THE    DIDACHE    OR    TEACHING    OF   THE    TWELVE    APOSTLES.  21 

of  the  Way  of  Life,  in  which  it  is  easy  to  recognize  a  slight  paraphrase 
of  the  first  four  chapters  of  the  Didache.  Similarly,  a  more  exten- 
sive overworking  of  the  entire  Didache  is  met  with  in  the  first  part 
of  the  seventh  book  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  (cc.  I — 32),  a 
work  that  was  very  probably  compiled  about  the  beginning  of  the 
fifth  century  in  Syria.  Among  the  Latins  the  work  is  first  met  with 
in  the  pseudo-Cyprianic  homily  «Adversus  aleatores»1.  There  is  still 
extant  an  ancient  Latin  version  of  the  first  six  chapters. 

The  editio  princeps  of  the  Didache  is  entitled :  Aiöor/-?]  tcuv  öwösxa  daro- 
jxoXtov ,    Ix  xou    ispoaoAujJiiTixou    ^sipo-ypacpou    vuv  itpakov    IxSiSojxEvr)    \izra    ftpö* 

XsYOJXSVtDV    Xal  07)|A£lU)!7Sü)V  .   .   .   UTZO  ÖlXoÖloU    BpUSVVtOD  [AYjTpQTCoXlTOÜ    NixojAYjösias. 

'Ev  KüjvcjravTtvouTvoXsi,  1883  (cxlix.  75  pp.).  The  «Codex  Hierosolymitanus»  is 
a  parchment  manuscript,  written  in  1056,  probably  in  Palestine.  In  1883 
it  was  in  the  library  of  the  Hospice  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre  Church  at 
Constantinople,  whence  it  was  soon  transferred  to  the  library  of  the  Greek 
Patriarchate  at  Jerusalem.  Those  pages  of  the  manuscript  that  contained 
the  Didache  were  photographed  by  J.  Mendel  Harris  for  his  edition  of 
the  text:  The  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  Baltimore  and  London, 
1887.  A  lively  interest  was  at  once  aroused,  especially  in  England  and 
America,  with  the  result  that  a  rich  and  varied  literature  has  grown 
up  about  this  work.  Cf.  F.  X.  Funk,  Doctrina  duodecim  apostolorum, 
Tübingen,  1887,  pp.  xlvi — lii,  for  the  literature  previous  to  that  year2;  a 
lengthier  list  is  found  in  Ph.  Schaff,  The  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles, 
3.  ed.,  New  York,  1889,  pp.  140 — 158,  297 — 320.  Among  the  many  edi- 
tions of  the  Didache  those  of  Bryennios,  Schaff,  Funk,  and  Rendel  Harris 
are  especially  meritorious  by  reason  of  their  wealth  of  information.  See 
A.  Harnack,  Die  Lehre  der  zwölf  Apostel  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen  zur 
Geschichte  der  altchristlichen  Literatur  ii.  1 — 2),  Leipzig,  1884,  stereotyped 
1893.  All  these  editions  contain,  beside  the  text  of  the  Didache,  older 
adaptations  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Two  Ways,  especially  the  Apostolic 
Church- Ordinance  (entire  or  in  part)  and  the  first  part  of  the  seventh  book 
of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions.  An  Arabic  adaptation  of  the  first  six  chapters 
of  the  Didache,  taken  from  a  Coptic  source,  was  discovered  and  published 
by  L.  E.  Iselin  and  A.  Heusler,  Eine  bisher  unbekannte  Version  des  ersten 
Teiles  der  Apostellehre  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen  xiii.  1),  Leipzig,  1895. 
Harnack  followed  up  his  larger  edition  with  a  smaller  one,  in  which  he 
undertook  to  reproduce  the  supposed  Jewish  prototype  of  the  Didache: 
Die  Apostellehre  und  die  jüdischen  beiden  Wege,  Leipzig,  1886,  2.  ed. 
1896.  Contemporaneously  with  his  edition  of  the  Didache,  Funk  brought 
out  a  new  edition  of  the  first  volume  of  his  «Opera  Patrum  apostolico- 
rum»  and  included  in  it  the  newly-found  text  «Didache,  seu  Doctrina  xii 
Apostolorum».  In  a  Munich  manuscript  of  the  eleventh  century  J.  Schlecht 
found  an  old  Latin  version  of  the  first  six  chapters  of  the  Didache;  a 
short  fragment  of  the  same  (Did.  1 ,  1 — 3 :  2,  2 — 6)  had  already  been 
edited  by  B.  Pez  in  1723  from  a  Melk  codex  of  the  ninth  or  tenth  cen- 
tury. Schlecht ,  Die  Lehre  der  zwölf  Apostel  in  der  Liturgie  der  katho- 
lischen Kirche,  Freiburg,  1900;  Id.,  Doctrina  XII  apostolorum,  Freiburg, 
1900.  The  literature  of  the  subject  is  very  copious;  it  may  suffice  to  indi- 
cate several  essays  of  Funk,  written  1884— 1897  on  the  date  of  the  origin 
of  the  Didache  and  on  its  relations  to   similar  texts;   they  may  be  found 

1  In   doctrinis  apostolorum,   c.   4. 

2  This  list  has  been  brought  up  to  date  in  bis  new  edition,  Tübingen,    1901. 


22  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

in  his  Kirchengeschichtliche  Abhandlungen,  Paderborn,  1899,  ii.  108 — 141 ; 
cf.  Th.  Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Geschichte  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  und 
der  altkirchl.  Literatur,  Erlangen  and  Leipzig,  1884,  iii.  278 — 319.  A.  Kra- 
wutzcky,  Über  die  sogen.  Zwölfapostellehre,  ihre  hauptsächlichsten  Quellen 
und  ihre  erste  Aufnahme,  in  Theol.  Quartalschrift  (1884),  lxvi.  547 — 606. 
K.  München,  Die  Lehre  der  zwölf  Apostel,  eine  Schrift  des  1.  Jahrhun- 
derts, in  Zeitschrift  für  kath.  Theologie  (1886),  x.  629—676.  C.  Taylor, 
The  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  with  Illustrations  from  the  Talmud, 
Cambridge,  1886.  Id.,  An  Essay  on  the  Theology  of  the  Didache,  ib. 
1889.  G.  Wohlenberg ,  Die  Lehre  der  zwölf  Apostel  in  ihrem  Verhältnis 
zum  neutestamentlichen  Schrifttum,  Erlangen,  1888.  J.  M.  Minasi ,  La 
dottrina  del  Signore  pei  Dodici  Apostoli  bandita  alle  genti  (translation, 
notes  and  commentary),  Rome,  1891.  P.  Sam,  La  «Dottrina  degli  Apo- 
stoli», ricerche  critiche  sull'  origine  del  testo  con  una  nota  intorno  al'  eu- 
caristia,  Roma,  1893,  reprinted  in  «Litteratura  cristiana  antica».  C.  H. 
Hook,  The  Didache,  London,  1894.  Studi  critici  del  P.  Paolo  Savi  barna- 
bita  raccolti  e  riordinati  dal  can.  Fr.  Bolese,  Siena,  1899,  47 — 119.  Osser- 
vazioni  sulla  Didache  degli  Apostoli  in  Bessarione  vol.  ii  (1897 — 1898), 
12 — 17  vol.  iii.  U.  Benigni,  Didache  coptica  «duarum  viarum»  recensio 
coptica  monastica  per  arabicam  versionem  superstes,  ib.  vol.  iii  (1898  and 
1899);  iv.  311—329  (also  in  separate  reprint).  E.  Hennecke,  Die  Grund- 
schrift  der  Didache  und  ihre  Rezensionen,  in  Zeitschrift  für  die  neutesta- 
mentliche  Wissenschaft  (1901),  ii.  58 — 72.  F.  X.  Funk,  Zur  Didache,  die 
Frage  nach  der  Grundschrift  und  ihren  Rezensionen,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr. 
(1902),  lxxxiv,  73 — 88-  cf.  P.  Mariano,  La  dottrina  dei  Dodici  Apostoli 
e  la  critica  storica  in  «II  Cristianesimo  nei  primi  secoli»  (Scritti  vari,  iv), 
Florence,  1902,  357 — 394.  Ludwig,  Zur  Lehre  vom  Kirchenamte  in  der 
Didache,  in  Hist.-polit.  Blätter  (1901),  cxxviii.  732  —  739.  P.  Ladeuze, 
L'Eucharistie  et  les  repas  communs  des  fideles  dans  la  Didache,  in 
Revue  de  l'Orient  chretien  (1902),  vii.  341 — 359.  W.  Scher  er ,  Der 
Weinstock  Davids  (Did.  9,  2)  im  Lichte  der  Schrifterklärung  betrachtet, 
in  Katholik  (1903),  i.  357 — 365.  B.  Labanca,  La  dottrina  degli  Apostoli 
studiata  in  Italia,  Roma,  1895,  in  Rivista  italiana  di  filosofia  x,  1895.  Th. 
Schermann,  Eine  Elfapostelmoral  oder  die  X-Rezension  der  beiden 
Wege,  Munich,  1902  (Veröffentlichungen  aus  dem  kirchenhistor.  Seminar 
ü.  2).  P.  Batiffol,  L'Eucharistie  dans  la  Didache,  in  Revue  biblique 
(1905),  pp.  58 — 67.  Bigg ,  Notes  on  the  Didache,  in  Journal  of  Theol. 
Studies  (July  1904),  v.  579 — 589.  J.  V.  Bartlet ,  (art.)  «Didache»  in 
Hastings'  Diet,  of  the  Bible  (extra  vol.)  (1904),  pp.  438—451. 

§  7.    The  so-called  Epistle  of  Barnabas. 

I .  ITS  CONTENTS.  The  Letter  current  under  the  name  of  St.  Bar- 
nabas gives  the  names  neither  of  the  author  nor  of  the  recipients; 
they  are  called  «sons  and  daughters»  (c.  1,  1)  or  «brothers»  (cc.  2,  10; 
3,6,  and  passim)  or  «children»  (cc.  7,  1 ;  9,  7).  Though  the  author 
of  the  Letter  had  preached  the  Gospel  among  those  to  whom  it  is 
addressed,  he  nowhere  indicates  their  dwelling-place.  Apart  from  the 
exordium  (c.  1)  and  the  conclusion  (c.  21)  the  Letter  is  divided  into 
two  parts  of  very  unequal  length  (cc.  2 — 17  and  18 — 20).  The  first 
part  of  the  Letter  undertakes  to  appreciate  properly  the  value  and 
the  meaning  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  author  is  not  satisfied 
with  the  teaching  of  the  New  Testament,  that  the  Old  has  been  an- 


THE    SO-CALLED    EPISTLE    OF    BARNABAS. 


23 


nulled  and  the  Mosaic  Law  abrogated.  He  goes  farther  and  asserts 
that  the  Old  Testament  was  never  valid,  that  Judaism  with  its  pre- 
cepts and  ceremonies  was  not  ordained  of  God,  but  was  a  work 
of  human  folly  and  diabolical  deceit.  Deceived  by  the  devil,  the 
Jews  had  understood  the  Law  in  the  literal  sense,  whereas  they 
should  have  interpreted  it,  not  according  to  the  letter  but  according 
to  the  spirit.  God  asked  not  for  external  sacrifices,  but  for  a  con- 
trite heart  (c.  2) ;  not  for  corporal  fasting,  but  for  good  works  (c.  3) ;  not 
for  circumcision  of  the  flesh,  but  for  that  of  the  ears  and  the  heart  (c.  9) ; 
not  for  abstinence  from  the  flesh  of  certain  animals,  but  from  the 
sins  that  are  represented  by  these  animals  (c.  10).  In  truth,  the 
Old  Testament  in  its  entirety  was  a  mysterious  foretelling  of  the  New 
Testament;  throughout  its  pages  are  everywhere  suggested  or  prefigured 
the  truths  of  Christian  revelation  or  facts  of  the  Gospel  history. 
Thus,  in  the  circumcision  of  the  three  hundred  and  eighteen  servants 
of  Abraham  (Gen.  xvii.  27;  cf.  xiv.  14)  there  is  a  mystical  allusion 
to  the  death  of  our  Lord  on  the  cross :  1 8  =  irt  —  Jesus,  and  300 
=  t  =  the  Cross  (c.  9).  In  the  eighteenth  chapter  the  author  passes 
to  «another  knowledge  and  doctrine».  He  describes  minutely  two 
opposite  Ways,  the  Way  of  Light  (c.  19)  and  the  Way  of  Darkness 
(c.  20).  It  is  highly  probable,  as  has  been  already  observed  (§  6.  2), 
that  the  introduction  to  the  Didache  was  here  his  source  and  model. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  unity  and  homogeneity  of  the  Letter 
in  the  form  in  which  it  has  come  down  to  us:  the  hypotheses  of 
retouches  and  interpolations,  suggested  by  Heydecke  and  Weiss,  are 
without  foundation.  The  author's  literary  incapacity  is  evident,  a  fact 
that  explains  the  absence  of  connected  and  consecutive  thought. 

2.  ITS  NON- AUTHENTICITY.  With  one  voice  Christian  antiquity 
indicated  as  author  of  this  work  St.  Barnabas,  the  travelling  com- 
panion and  fellow-labourer  of  the  Apostle  Paul ;  he  is  himself  called  an 
Apostle  (Acts  xiv.  4,  14;  1  Cor.  ix.  5  f;  cf.  Gal.  ii.  9).  The  oldest 
writer  in  whom  are  found  express  citations  from  the  Letter  is  Clement 
of  Alexandria;  he  frequently  attributes  the  authorship  of  it  to  St.  Barna- 
bas1. This  was  also  the  belief  of  Origen2.  The  latter  even  calls  it 
a  xaftoktxY]  ETitoToAy,  probably  because  even  then  it  bore  no  special 
address.  Both  of  these  Alexandrine  doctors  held  the  Letter  in 
very  great  veneration.  Eusebius  places  it  3  among  the  non-canonical 
writings,  the  vS&a  or  avrdejofievat  ypayai',  St.  Jerome  among  the  apo- 
cryphal writings i.  Both,  however,  seem  firmly  persuaded  of  the  author- 
ship of  St.  Barnabas.  In  general,  throughout  the  patristic  literature 
there  is  no  expression  to  the  contrary.  But  modern  opinion  judges 
differently.  There  may  be  yet  an  occasional  defender  of  the  authorship 

1  Strom.,  ii.  6,   31  ;   7,   35.  2  Contra  Celsum,  i.   63. 

3  Hist,  eccl.,  iii.   25,  4;  vi.    13,  6. 

4  De  viris  illustr.,  c.   6;   Comm.  in  Ezech.  ad  43,    ^9. 


24  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIRST   SECTION. 

of  St.  Barnabas,  but  the  great  majority  of  scholars  have  declared  the 
Letter  non-authentic.  A  very  decisive  argument  is  its  teaching  concerning 
the  Old  Testament;  it  is  quite  opposed  to  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles, 
especially  of  St.  Paul,  and  cannot  therefore  be  attributed  to  St.  Bar- 
nabas. Moreover,  the  indications  of  the  author  concerning  the  epoch 
in  which  he  lived  do  not  permit  us  to  believe  in  the  authenticity  of 
this  Letter.  It  is  sufficiently  certain  that  Barnabas  did  not  survive 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  (70),  a  date  that  for  the  author  of 
the  Letter  is  already  in  the  past  (c.  16).  It  is  also  an  undoubted 
fact  that  St.  Barnabas  was  no  longer  alive  in  the  time  of  the  Emperor 
Nerva,  when,  according  to  the  most  approved  conjectures,  the  Letter 
was  composed. 

3.  TIME  AND  place  OF  COMPOSITION.  Two  passages  in  the  Letter 
are  relied  on  to  determine  with  some  precision  the  date  of  its  com- 
position. In  one  (c.  4)  the  author  maintains  the  proximity  of  the  end 
of  the  world.  This  will  come  about  in  the  time  of  an  eleventh  king 
who,  according  to  the  prophecy  of  Daniel  (VII.  8,  24)  has  humiliated 
three  of  the  ten  kings  who  preceded  him,  and  that,  adds  the  author 
of  the  Letter,  at  the  same  time  (up  I»  c.  4.  4,  5).  It  seems  certain 
that  the  time  of  the  reign  of  this  eleventh  king  was  the  period  in  which 
the  Letter  was  composed.  But  who  is  this  eleventh  king?  According 
to  the  most  plausible  opinion  (Hilgenfeld,  Funk)  it  is  the  Emperor 
Nerva  (96 — 98).  His  three  predecessors  belong  to  the  same  family, 
and  in  and  with  Domitian  (the  last  representative  of  the  family  of  the 
Flavii)  all  three  in  a  certain  sense  may  be  said  to  have  been  dethroned. 
It  is  true  that,  counting  in  Augustus,  Nerva  is  not  the  eleventh  but 
the  twelfth  emperor;  we  may  admit,  however,  that  the  author  has 
forgotten  in  his  enumeration  one  of  the  three  ephemeral  emperors 
(Galba,  Otto,  or  Vitellius),  predecessors  of  Vespasian,  and  who  were 
not  all  recognized  in  every  part  of  the  empire.  The  second  passage  con- 
cerning the  Temple  (c.  16)  cannot  be  relied  on  for  chronological  pur- 
poses. The  words  «now  the  Temple  is  being  rebuilt»  (c.  16.  4) 
have  been  recently  interpreted  by  Harnack  of  the  building  of 
the  temple  of  Jupiter  Capitolinus  under  Hadrian  (about  130)  and 
on  the  site  of  the  Temple  of  Jerusalem.  It  is  highly  probable, 
however,  from  the  context,  that  the  author  is  speaking  not  of  a 
pagan  temple  of  stone,  but  of  a  spiritual  temple  in  the  hearts  of  the 
faithful  (Trusüjuarr/MQ  vaoQ  olxodofioupevoQ  zw  xupiw ,  c.  16.  10).  The 
place  of  composition  is  usually  understood  to  be  Alexandria;  the 
allegorical  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  to  which  the  author  is  very 
much  addicted  was  a  special  characteristic  of  that  city.  The  Letter's 
immediate  circle  of  readers  might  well  be  a  mixed  community  of 
Judaeo-Christians  and  Gentile  converts  in  the  vicinity  of  Alexandria. 

4.  Manuscripts  and  Editions.  The  «Letter  of  Barnabas»  is  found  com- 
plete in  two  manuscripts.  The  older  and  more  important  is  the  Greek  biblical 


§    8.      CLEMENT    OF    ROME.  2$ 

codex  of  the  fourth  century,  discovered  in  1859,  by  C.  Tischendorf,  and 
known  as  the  Codex  Sinaiticus.  It  contains,  as  an  appendix  to  the  biblical 
books,  the  Letter  of  Barnabas  and  a  part  of  the  Shepherd  of  Hennas. 
The  other  manuscript  is  the  Codex  Hierosolymitanus  of  the  year  1056,  dis- 
covered by  Ph.  Bryennios  (fol.  33* — 5iv).  There  are  also  several  manu- 
scripts of  this  Letter  that  come  down  from  a  single  archetype,  but  in 
which  are  lacking  the  first  four  chapters  and  half  of  the  fifth:  their  text 
begins  (c.  5.  7)  with  the  words  tov  Xapv  tov  xatvo*v»  An  additional  means  of 
controlling  the  text  of  the  Letter  is  found  in  an  old  Latin  version,  very  faulty 
however  and  incomplete,  preserved  in  a  St.  Petersburg  codex  of  the  ninth 
or  tenth  century;  it  contains  the  text  of  cc.  1  — 17.  The  Letter  was 
first  printed,  together  with  the  Letters  of  St.  Ignatius,  by  J.  Ussher,  the 
Anglican  archbishop  of  Armagh,  in  1642.  Cf.  J.  H  Backhouse,  The  Editio 
Princeps  of  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas  by  Archbishop  Ussher,  Oxford,  1883. 
A  second  and  separate  edition  was  published  by  the  Maurist  Benedictine 
Hugo  Menard,  or  rather,  since  his  death  in  1644  prevented  his  issue 
of  the  work,  by  his  confrere  J.  L.  d' Ach&ry,  Paris,  1645.  A  third  edition 
that  included  the  Ignatian  Letters  and  was  based  on  a  wider  collation  of 
manuscripts,  was  prepared  by  the  Leyden  philologian  y.  Voss,  Amsterdam, 
1646,  2.  ed.  London,  1680.  Many  of  the  later  editions  are  indicated  (§  4) 
among  the  editions  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers:  y.  B.  Cotelier,  Paris,  1672; 
Antwerp,  1698;  Amsterdam  1724  (reprinted  in  Gallandi,  Bibl.  vet.  Patr. 
t.  i;  Migne,  PG.  ii.);  C.  y.  Hefele,  Tübingen  1839,  4.  ed.  1855;  A.M. 
Dressel,  Leipzig,  1857,  2.  ed.  1863;  A.  Hilgenfeld,  ib.  1866,  2.  ed.  1877. 
O.  von  Gebhardt  and  A.  Harnack ,  ib.  1875,  2-  ed.  ^7  8;  Fr.  X.  Funk, 
Tübingen,  1878,  1887,  1901. — Translations  of  and  works  on  the  Apostolic 
Fathers  are  mentioned  in  §  4.  Among  the  special  studies  on  the  Letter 
of  Barnabas  cf.  C.  y.  Hefele,  Das  Sendschreiben  des  Apostels  Barnabas, 
aufs  neue  untersucht,  übersetzt  und  erklärt,  Tübingen,  1840.  y.  Kayser, 
Über  den  sog.  Barnabasbrief,  Paderborn,  1866.  y.  G.  Müller,  Erklärung 
des  Barnabasbriefes,  Leipzig,  1869.  Chr.  y.  Riggenbach,  Der  sogen.  Brief 
des  Barnabas,  Übersetzung,  Bemerkungen,  Basel,  1873.  C.  Heydecke,  Disser- 
tatio  qua  Barnabae  Epistola  interpolata  demonstratur ,  Brunsvigi,  1874. 
O.  Braunsberger,  Der  Apostel  Barnabas.  Sein  Leben  und  der  ihm  beigelegte 
Brief,  wissenschaftlich  gewürdigt,  Mainz,  1876.  W.  Cunningham,  The  Epistle 
of  S.  Barnabas.  A  Dissertation  including  a  Discussion  of  its  date  and 
authorship,  London,  1877.  Two  dissertations  by  Funk,  on  the  date  of 
authorship  of  the  Epistle,  are  reprinted  in  his  Kirchengeschichtliche  Abhand- 
lungen und  Untersuchungen  (1899),  ii.  77 — 108.  C.  Fr.  Arnold,  Quaestionum 
de  compositione  et  fontibus  Barnabae  epistolae  capita  nonnulla  (Dissert, 
inaug.),  Regiomonti,  1886.  y.  Weiß,  Der  Barnabasbrief,  kritisch  untersucht, 
Berlin,  1888.  A.  Harnack,  Geschichte  der  altchristlichen  Literatur  (1897), 
ii.  410 — 428.  A.  Ladeuze,  L'rtpitre  de  Barnabe,  in  Revue  d'histoire  ecclesia- 
stique  (1900),  i.  31—40,  212  —  225.  On  the  formal  or  artistic  execution  of 
the  Epistle  cf.  T.  M.  Wehofer,  Untersuchungen  zur  altchristlichen  Epistolo- 
graphie,  Vienna,  1901.  A.  van  Veldhuizen ,  De  Brief  van  Barnabas,  Gro- 
ningen, 1 90 1.  A.  Di  Pauli,  Kritisches  zum  Barnabasbrief,  in  Histor.-polit. 
Blätter  (1902),  cxxxi  318 — 324.  y.  Turme  I ,  La  lettre  de  Barnabe,  in 
Annales  de  philos.  chretienne,   1903,  juillet,  387 — 398. 

§  8.     Clement  of  Rome. 
I.  HIS  LIFE.    According  to  St.  Irenaeus1,  he  was  the  third  successor 
of  St.  Peter   in    the   Roman    See.     The   later   opinion  that   Clement 

1  Adv.  haer.,  iii.  3,   3. 


20  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

was  the  immediate  successor  of  St.  Peter 1  is  probably  derived  from  the 
so-called  Clementine  Literature  (§  26,  3)  and  certainly  is  unhistorical. 
Eusebius  himself  looked  on  Clement  as  the  fourth  pope,  and  reckoned 
his  pontificate  at  nine  years  (92- — 101),  from  the  twelfth  year  of 
Domitian  to  the  third  of  Trajan  2.  For  his  early  life  we  are  reduced 
to  conjecture.  The  Clementine  statement  that  he  belonged  to  the 
imperial  family  of  the  Flavii  deserves  no  credence.  Recent  writers 
have  wisely  abandoned  the  hypothesis,  closely  related  to  the  Cle- 
mentine view,  that  Clement  is  identical  with  the  consul  Titus  Flavius 
Clemens,  a  cousin  of  Domitian,  put  to  death  (95  or  96)  as  guilty 
of  atheism  and  Jewish  practices,  i.  e.  very  probably  as  a  Christian  3. 
The  general  impression  produced  by  his  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians 
seems  favourable  to  the  thesis  that  Clement  was  of  Jewish,  not 
Gentile,  parentage.  The  relatively  very  late  narratives  of  his  martyr- 
dom can  hardly  claim  to  be  more  than  poetry  and  saga.  Origen4 
and  Eusebius5  identify  our  writer  with  that  Clement  whom  St.  Paul 
names  and  praises  as  one  of  his  «fellow-labourers»  6. 

The  «testimonia»  of  antiquity  concerning  Clement  are  discussed  at 
length  in  Lightfoot,  The  Apostolic  Fathers,  part  I,  London,  1890,  i.  14 — 103, 
104— 115,  201 — 345.  For  his  place  in  the  catalogue  of  popes  see  Duchesne, 
Liber  Pontificalis,  I,  Paris,  1886,  lxxi. — lxxxiii,  and  for  the  consul  Titus 
Flavius  Clemens,  Fr.  X.  Funk,  Kirchengeschichtl.  Abhandlungen  und  Unter- 
suchungen, Paderborn,   1897,  i.  308 — 329. 

2.  THE  LETTER  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS.  Clement  is  the  author 
of  a  long  Letter  to  the  Christian  community  at  Corinth,  that  has 
reached  us  in  the  Greek  original  and  in  a  Latin  and  a  Syriac  version. 
In  that  city  a  few  bold  and  presumptuous  men  (c.  i.  1,  cf.  47.  6) 
had  risen  against  their  ecclesiastical  superiors  and  driven  them  from 
their  offices;  Clement  desires  to  put  an  end  to  the  confusion.  In 
the  exordium  of  his  Letter  he  depicts  in  lively  colours  the  former 
flourishing  state  of  the  Church  of  Corinth ;  after  a  brief  notice  of  the 
very  deplorable  actual  condition  of  the  community,  he  goes  on  to 
the  first  part  of  the  Letter  (cc.  4 — 36).  It  contains  instruction  and 
exhortation  of  a  general  character,  warns  the  Corinthians  against 
envy  and  jealousy,  recommends  humility  and  obedience,  and  appeals 
continually  to  the  types  and  examples  of  these  virtues  offered  by 
the  Old  Testament.  The  second  part  (cc.  36 — 61)  deals  more 
directly  with  the  situation  at  Corinth.  He  treats  here  of  the  eccle- 
siastical hierarchy  and  exhibits  the  necessity  of  subjection  to  the 
legitimate    ecclesiastical    authorities.      In   conclusion   (cc.  62 — 65)    he 

1  St.  Jer.,  De  viris  illustr.,   c.    15. 

2  Hist,  eccl.,  iii.    15,  34;   cf.  Chron.  ad  an.  Abrah.   21 10. 

3  Dio   Cassius,  Hist.  Rom.,  lxvii.    14;   cf.  Suet.,  Domit.,   c.    15. 

4  Comm.  in  Jo.,  vi.  36.  5  Hist,  eccl.,  iii.    15. 
6  Phil.  iv.  3. 


§    8.      CLEMENT    OF    ROME.  2/ 

summarizes  what  he  has  already  said?  Long-  ago  Photius  recognized 1 
the  simplicity  and  clearness  of  his  style.  The  name  of  Clement  does 
not  appear  in  the  Letter ;  it  presents  itself,  formally,  as  a  writing  of 
the  Christian  community  at  Rome.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  however, 
that  it  is  the  work  of  Clement,  who  wrote  as  the  head  and  represen- 
tative of  the  Roman  community 2.  Quite  decisive  are  the  words  of 
Dionysius  of  Corinth  in  his  reply  to  a  letter  of  Pope  Soter 3  written 
about  170:  «To-day  we  have  celebrated  the  Lord's  holy  day,  in 
which  we  have  read  your  Letter.  From  it,  whenever  we  read  it, 
we  shall  always  be  able  to  draw  advice,  as  also  from  the  former 
Letter  which  was  written  to  us  by  Clement»  :  cog  xat  tyjv  irporipav 
Tjfjuv  diä  Kl7]fj.evT0Q  fpayeloav,  sc.  ItckkoMjv.  Without  naming  him, 
St.  Polycarp  quotes  Clement  in  his  own  Letter  to  the  Philippians. 
The  Letter  of  Clement  was  probably  composed  towards  the  end  of 
the  reign  of  Domitian  (81 — 96)  or  the  beginning  of  that  of  Nerva 
(96 — 98).  From  the  lost  work  of  Hegesippus,  Eusebius  learned  that 
the  agitation  and  discord  at  Corinth  which  gave  occasion  to  the 
Letter,  arose  in  the  time  of  Domitian4.  In  the  history  of  Christian 
doctrine  this  communication  to  the  Church  of  Corinth  is  very  import- 
ant as  a  «de  facto»  witness  to  the  primacy  of  the  Roman  Church. 
The  hypothesis  that  the  Corinthians  solicited  the  intervention  of  the 
Roman  Church  is  incompatible  with  certain  passages  in  the  Letter 
(cc.  i.  1  ;  47,  6 — 7).  It  may  be  added  that  the  primitive  authority 
of  that  Church  shines  out  all  the  more  clearly  if  it  be  accepted 
that  it  dealt  unasked  with  the  affairs  of  the  Corinthian  Church,  in 
the  conviction  that  the  restoration  of  order  was  a  duty  incumben 
upon  it. 

The  Letter  to  the  Corinthians,  and  the  so-called  Second  Letter  to  the 
same,  have  come  down  to  us  in  two  Greek  manuscripts,  the  Codex  Hiero- 
solymitanus  of  1056  (§  6,  4;  7,  4)  and  the  so-called  Codex  Alexandrinus, 
the  latter  being  the  well-known  fifth-century  biblical  codex  of  the  British 
Museum  at  London.  In  the  latter  manuscript  the  text  of  both  Letters, 
particularly  that  of  the  second,  has  reached  us  in  a  very  imperfect  condition. 
The  Codex  Alexandrinus  has  been  reproduced  in  photographic  facsimile: 
Facsimile  of  the  Codex  Alexandrinus,  vol.  IV.  New  Testament  and  Cle- 
mentine Epistles,  London,  1879.  A  similar  photographic  reproduction 
of  the  text  of  Clement  as  found  in  the  Codex  Hierosolymitanus  (fol. 
5iv — 76r)  may  be  seen  in  Light  foot,  The  Apostolic  Fathers,  part  I  (1890), 
i.  421 — 474.  A  very  old  and  very  literal  Latin  version  of  the  first  Letter 
was  edited  by  G.  Morin  from  a  codex  of  the  eleventh  century,  Mared- 
sous,  1894  (Anecdota  Maredsolana,  ii).  Cf.  A.  Harnack  in  Sitzungsberichte 
der  kgl.  preuß.  Akademie  der  Wissenschaften,  Berlin,  1894,  pp.  261 — 273, 
601 — 621;  E.  Wölfflin  in  Archiv  für  latein.  Lexikographie  und  Grammatik 
(1894),    ix.    81—100;    H.    Kihn    in    Theol.    Quartalschrift    (1894),    lxxvi. 

1  Bibl.  cod.,  p.   126. 

2  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  iii.   38,    I.     St.  Jer.,  De  viris  illustr.,  c.   15. 

3  Eus.,  ib.,  iv.   23,    11.  4  Ib.,  iii.    16;   iv.  22,    I. 


28  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

540 — 549.  An  ancient  Syriac  version  of  both  Letters  is  met  with  in  a 
Cambridge  manuscript  of  1170;  the  more  important  readings  were  publish- 
ed by  Light f oot ,  St.  Clement  of  Rome,  an  Appendix,  London  1877, 
pp.  397 — 470;  cf.  Id.,  The  Apostolic  Fathers,  parti  (1890),  i.  129 — 146. 
The  complete  text  was  published  by  R.  L.  Bensly,  or  rather  after  his  death, 
by  R.  H.  Kennet,  London,  1899.  The  editio  princeps  of  both  Letters  is 
that  of  P.  Junius  (Young),  Oxford,  1633,  2.  ed.  1637,  whence  Cotelier 
took  them  for  his  edition  of  the  Patres  aevi  apostolici,  Paris,  1672.  Since 
then  they  are  found  in  every  edition  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers  (§  4).  Philo- 
theos  Bryennios  was  the  first  to  publish  from  the  Codex  Hierosol.  the  full 
text  of  both  Letters.  The  most  valuable  edition  is  that  of  Lightfoot  (f  1889), 
in  the  second  edition  of  the  first  part  of  his  Apostolic  Fathers  published 
at  London,  1890,  after  his  death.  The  first  Letter  was  also  edited  by 
R.  Knopf,  Leipzig,  1899  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  new  series,  v.  i.)  and 
in  the  first  volume  of  the  first  series  of  the  Bibliotheca  Sanctorum  Patrum 
edited  by  S.  Vizzini,  Rome,  1901.  German  translations  of  both  Letters 
have  been  published  recently  by  Karger,  Schalz,  and  Mayer  (§  4).  Among 
the  English  translations  see  that  of  Lightfoot ,  St.  Clement  of  Rome,  An 
Appendix  (1877),  345 — 390;  cf.  The  Apostolic  Fathers,  i  (1890),  ii.  271 — 316. 
From  the  literature  on  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  we  quote :  R.  A. 
Lipsius ,  De  Clementis  Romani  epistola  ad  Corinthios  priore  disquisitio, 
Leipzig,  1855.  A.  Brüll,  Der  erste  Brief  des  Clemens  von  Rom  an  die 
Korinther  und  seine  geschichtliche  Bedeutung,  Freiburg,  1883.  W.  Wrede, 
Untersuchungen  zum  ersten  Clemensbrief,  Göttingen,  1891.  L.  Lemme,  Das 
Judenchristentum  der  Urkirche  und  der  Brief  des  Clemens  Romanus,  in  Neue 
Jahrbücher  für  deutsche  Theol.  (1892),  i.  325—480.  G.  Courtois,  L'Epitre 
de  Clement  de  Rome  (These),  Montauban,  1894.  J.  P.  Bang,  Studien  über 
Clemens  Romanus,  in  Theol.  Studien  und  Kritiken  (1898),  Ixxi.  431 — 486. 
Cf.  Ad.  Harnack,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  xx,  new  series,  v.  3  (1890), 
70 — 80.  B.  Heurtier,  Le  dogme  de  la  Trinke  dans  l'fipitre  de  St.  Clement 
de  Rome  et  le  Pasteur  d'Hermas  (These),  Lyon,  1890.  A.  Stahl,  Patristische 
Untersuchungen,  i.  Der  erste  Brief  des  römischen  Clemens,  Leipzig,  1901. 
W.  Scher  er ,  Der  erste  Clemensbrief  an  die  Korinther  nach  seiner  Bedeu- 
tung für  die  Glaubenslehre  der  kathol.  Kirche  am  Ausgang  des  1.  Jahrhun- 
derts, Regensburg,  1902.  For  the  style  and  diction  of  the  Letter  cf.  Wehofer 
op.  cit.  (§  7,  4).  E.  Dorsch,  Die  Gottheit  Jesu  bei  Clemens  von  Rom,  in 
Zeitschrift  für  kath.  Theol.  (1902),  xxvi.  466 — 491.  J.  Turmel,  Etude  sur 
la  Lettre  de  St.  Clement  de  Rome  aux  Corinthiens,  in  Annales  de  philos. 
chretienne  (1903),  Mai,  144 — 160.  A.  van  Veldhuyzen,  De  tekst  van  z.  g. 
eersten  Brief  van  Clemens  aan  de  Korinthiers,  in  Theol.  Studien  (1903),  i. 
1 — 34.  B.  Schweitzer,  Glaube  und  Werke  bei  Clemens  Romanus,  in  Theol. 
Quartalschrift  (1903),  lxxxv.  417—437,  547—575- 

3.  THE  SO-CALLED  SECOND  LETTER  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS.  In 
the  manuscripts  (Greek  and  Syriac),  likewise  in  the  printed  editions, 
the  Letter  to  the  Corinthians  is  followed  by  another  work,  usually  called 
the  Second  Letter  to  the  Corinthians.  The  character  of  its  contents  is 
very  general:  the  Christian  must  lead  a  life  worthy  of  his  vocation, 
must  prefer  the  promises  of  the  future  to  the  joys  of  the  present,  must 
be  conscious  of  the  necessity  of  doing  penance  etc.  It  is  first  mention- 
ed by  Eusebius1  as  purporting  to  be  the  Second  Letter  of  Clement. 
Since  the  fifth  century  it  circulated  among  the  Greeks  and  Syrians  as 

1  Hist,  eccl.,   iii.   38,  4;   cf.  St.  Jer.,  De  viris  illustr.,  c.   15. 


§    8.      CLEMENT    OF    ROME.  29 

the  Second  Letter  of  Clement  to  the  Corinthians.  Eusebius  himself  had 
some  suspicion  that  it  could  not  be  the  work  of  Clement.  It  is  now 
generally  admitted  that  internal  and  external  criteria  make  it  clear  that 
the  document  belongs  to  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  if  not  to 
a  somewhat  later  date.  When  the  full  text  was  published  in  1875,  it 
became  evident  that  it  was  not  a  letter,  but  a  sermon  (cf.  cc.  15.  2; 
17.  3;  19.  1).  This  fact  is  enough  to  refute  a  former  hypothesis, 
recently  defended  by  Harnack,  that  in  this  writing  we  possess  the 
Letter  of  Pope  Soter  (166 — 174)  to  the  community  of  Corinth,  other- 
wise known  to  us  only  through  the  fragments  of  the  reply  of  Dio- 
nysius,  bishop  of  that  city1.  It  is  probable,  moreover,  that  this 
sermon  was  preached,  not  at  Rome  but  at  Corinth  (c.   7.    1—3). 

For  the  manuscript-tradition,  editions,  and  versions  of  the  so-called  Se- 
cond Letter  to  the  Corinthians,  see  above,  p.  26.  H.  Hagemann,  Über 
den  zweiten  Brief  des  Clemens  von  Rom,  in  Theol.  Quartalschrift  (1861), 
xliii.  509 — 531.  Ad.  Harnack",  Über  den  sog.  zweiten  Brief  des  Clemens 
an  die  Korinther,  in  Zeitschr.  für  Kirchengesch.  (1876 — 1877),  i.  264 — 283, 
329 — 364.  Id.,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  ii.  1  438 — 450.  Funk,  Der 
sog.  zweite  Clemensbrief,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.,  lxxxiv.  (1902)  345 — 364. 
R.  Knopf,  Die  Anagnose  zum  zweiten  Clemensbriefe,  in  Zeitschrift  für  die 
neutestamentl.  Wissensch.   1902,  iii.   266 — 279. 

4.  THE  TWO  LETTERS  TO  VIRGINS.  Two  Letters  in  Syriac  have 
come  down  to  us  under  the  name  of  Clement.  Both  are  address- 
ed to  Virgins,  i.  e.  to  unmarried  persons  or  ascetics  of  both  sexes; 
their  purpose  is  to  demonstrate  the  excellence  of  the  state  of  vir- 
ginity, and  also  to  furnish  rules  of  conduct  whereby  to  avoid  the 
perils  of  that  condition.  Cotterill  discovered  (1884)  in  the  «Pandects» 
of  the  Palestinian  monk  Antiochus  (c.  620)  lengthy  fragments  of  a 
Greek  text  of  both  Letters.  There  is  every  probability  that  the  Greek 
text  is  the  original  from  which  the  Syriac  version  was  made.  The 
earliest  traces  of  the  Letters  are  in  Epiphanius2.  Their  evident  op- 
position to  the  «Subintroductae»  makes  it  probable  that  they  were 
written  in  the  third  century,  perhaps  in  Syria  or  Palestine.  It  is 
clear  from  Epiphanius  (1.  c.)  that  in  the  fourth  century  they  were 
held  there  in  great  esteem.  As  the  conclusion  is  lacking  to  the 
first  and  the  introduction  to  the  second,  it  is  very  probable  that 
originally  the  two  Letters  were  one  document. 

The  Syriac  text  of  the  two  Letters  was  found  by  J.  J.  Wetstein  in  a 
Peschitto-Codex  of  the  New  Testament,  of  the  year  1470,  and  edited  by  him 
at  Leyden  in  1752  with  a  Latin  version.  A  reprint  of  the  Syriac  text  of 
Wetstein  is  found  in  Gallandi,  Bibl.  vet.  Patr.,  i.,  and  in  Migne,  PG.,  i. 
P.  Zingerle  published  a  German  translation  at  Vienna,  1827.  The  Syriac 
text  was  re-edited,  with  a  Latin  version,  by  J.  Th.  Beelen,  Louvain,  1856. 
This  Latin  translation  is  found,  with  corrections,  in  Funk,  Opp.  Patr. 
Apostol.,  ii.  1 — 27.     Cf.  J.  M.   Cotterill,    Modern  Criticism  and  Clement's 

1  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.   23,    10 — 12;  ii.   25,  8. 

2  Haer.,  xxx.    15;   cf.   St.  Jer.,  Adv.  Jovin.,   i.    12. 


30  .  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

Epistles  to  Virgins  (first  printed  1756)  or  their  Greek  version  newly  dis- 
covered in  Antiochus  Palaestinensis,  Edinburgh,  1884.  Ad.  Ha?-nack,  Die 
pseudo-clementinischen  Briefe  De  virginitate  und  die  Entstehung  des  Mönch- 
tums,  in  Sitzungsberichte  der  kgl.  preuß.  Akad.  der  Wissensch. ,  Berlin, 
1891,  pp.  361 — 385.  D.  Votier,  Die  Apostolischen  Väter  neu  untersucht. 
Part  i. :  Clemens,  Hermas,  Barnabas.    Leyden,   1904. 

§  9.     Ignatius  of  Antioch. 

I.  TRADITION  OF  THE  SEVEN  EPISTLES.  —  Ignatius,  called  also 
Theophorus,  the  second  or  (if  we  include  St.  Peter)  the  third  bishop 
of  Antioch1,  was  exposed  to  wild  beasts  at  Rome2  under  Trajan, 
i.  e.  between  98  and  1173.  He  was  taken  from  Antioch  to  Rome 
in  the  custody  of  soldiers,  and  on  the  way  wrote  seven  Letters  to 
the  Christians  of  Ephesus,  Magnesia,  Tralles,  Rome,  Philadelphia, 
Smyrna,  and  to  Polycarp,  bishop  of  the  latter  city.  The  collection 
of  these  Letters  that  lay  before  Eusebius4  has  been  lost;  but  later 
collections  of  Ignatian  Letters  have  been  preserved,  in  which  much 
scoria  is  mixed  with  the  pure  gold.  The  oldest  of  these,  usually 
called  the  Long  Recension,  contains  seven  genuine  and  six  spurious 
Letters,  but  even  the  genuine  ones  do  not  appear  in  their  original 
form;  they  are  all  more  or  less  enlarged  and  interpolated.  The  spurious 
Letters  are  those  of  a  certain  Maria  of  Cassobola  to  Ignatius,  his  reply, 
and  Letters  from  him  to  the  people  of  Tarsus,  Philippi,  Antioch,  and 
to  the  deacon  Hero  of  Antioch.  This  recension  is  extant  in  the  original 
Greek,  and  in  an  ancient  Latin  version.  It  seems  certain  that  we 
owe  to  one  and  the  same  hand  the  forgery  of  the  spurious  Letters, 
the  interpolation  of  the  genuine  ones,  and  the  union  of  all  in  the  Long 
Recension.  The  forger  was  an  Apollinarist,  for  he  twice  denies  that 
the  Redeemer  possessed  a  human  soul  (Philipp,  v.  2.  Philad.,  vi.  6). 
According  to  the  researches  of  Funk,  he  is  very  probably  identical  with 
the  compiler  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  that  were  put  together  in 
Syria  early  in  the  fifth  century.  Later  on,  a  «Laus  Heronis»  was  added 
to  this  collection,  i.  e.  a  panegyric  of  Ignatius  in  the  form  of  a  prayer 
to  him  made  by  Hero,  very  probably  written  in  Greek;  it  has  reached 
us  only  in  a  Latin  and  a  Coptic  (Lower  Egyptian  or  Memphitic)  text. 
Somewhere  between  this  Long  Recension  of  the  Ignatian  Letters 
and  the  collection  known  to  Eusebius  is  a  third  collection  that  has 
also  reached  us  in  Greek  and  Latin.  It  contains  the  seven  genuine 
Letters  in  their  original  form,  and  also  the  six  spurious  ones,  with  the 
exception  of  the  Letter  to  the  Philippians;  it  has  been  recently  called 
by  Funk,  and  not  improperly,  the  Mixed  Collection.  In  this  collection 
the  (genuine)  Letter  to  the  Romans  is  incorporated  with  the  so-called 

1  Orig.,  Horn.  vi.  in  Luc. ;  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  iii.   22. 

2  Orig.,  ib. ;  Eus.,  ib.  iii.   36,   3. 

3  Eus.,  Chron.  post  an.  Abr.   2123. 

4  Hist,  eccl.,   iii.  36,  4  ff. 


§    9-       IGNATIUS    OF    ANTIOCH.  3 1 

Martyrium  Colbertinum,  a  document  that  closes  the  collection,  and 
pretends  to  be  the  account  given  by  an  eye-witness  of  the  martyrdom  of 
St.  Ignatius.  Closely  related  to  this  collection  is  another  that  has  reached 
us  only  in  Armenian;  it  too  has  the  seven  genuine  and  the  six  spurious 
letters.  Its  original  is  a  Syriac  text  now  lost.  Similarly,  there  has 
been  preserved  in  Syriac  an  abbreviated  recension  of  the  three  genuine 
Letters  to  the  Ephesians,  the  Romans,  and  to  Polycarp.  Finally  we 
must  mention  four  Letters  preserved  in  Latin :  two  from  Ignatius  to 
the  Apostle  John,  and  one  to  the  Blessed  Virgin,  with  her  reply. 
These  four  Letters  may  be  traced  back  to  the  twelfth  century;  very 
probably  they  are  of  Western  origin. 

It  is  clear  from  the  preceding  that  the  authentic  text  of  the  seven 
genuine  Letters  must  be  gathered  from  the  Mixed  Recension ;  whose  Greek 
original  is  represented  in  a  single  codex  that  is,  moreover,  incomplete  **— 
the  Mediceo-Laurentianus  of  the  eleventh  century,  preserved  at  Florence. 
The  Letter  to  the  Romans  is  lacking  in  this  manuscript,  but  is  found  (as 
a  part  of  the  Martyrium  Colbertinum)  in  the  tenth  century  Codex  Colberti- 
nus  (Paris).  Two  other  codices  are  now  known,  but  they  present  no  sub- 
stantial variation;  cf.  Funk,  Patres  Apostolici,  2.  ed.,  torn.  ii.  lxxii  sq. 
However,  even  the  ancient  Latin  translation  in  the  Mixed  Recension  may 
lay  claim  to  the  value  of  a  Greek  text.  In  addition,  the  text  of  the 
Syro-Armenian  collection  and  that  of  the  Long  Recension  merit  conside- 
ration. There  are  several  Greek  codices  of  the  latter;  among  which  the 
Codex  Monacensis  (olim  Augustanus)  of  the  tenth  or  eleventh  century 
must  be  regarded  as  the  chief.  J.  Voss  was  the  first  to  edit  the  original 
text  of  the  genuine  Letters,  with  the  exception  of  that  to  the  Romans, 
Amsterdam,  1646.  Th.  Ruinart  published  the  text  of  the  latter  from  the 
Martyrium  Colbertinum,  Paris,  1689.  The  text  in  Migne,  PG.,  v.  625 — 728 
is  taken  from  Hefele,  Opp.  Patr.  apostol.  (3.  ed.  Tübingen,  1847).  The 
most  recent  and  best  editions  are  those  of  Zahn,  Ignatii  et  Polycarpi 
epistulae,  martyria,  fragmenta  (Patr.  apostol.  opp.  Rec.  O.  de  Gebhardt, 
Harnack ,  Zahn,  fasc.  ii),  Leipzig,  1876;  Funk,  Opp.  Patr.  apostol.,  i., 
Tübingen  1878,  1887,  1901 ;  Lightfoot,  The  Apostolic  Fathers,  Part  ii: 
St.  Ignatius,  St.  Polycarp,  London  1885,  1889,  2  vol.  Lightfoot's 
edition  presents  most  fully  all  ancient  ecclesiastical  tradition  concerning 
the  Letters.  (Ignatii  Antiocheni  et  Polycarpi  Smyrnaei  epistulae  et  mar- 
tyria, edidit  et  adnotationibus  instruxit  A.  Hilgenfcld ,  Berlin,  1902. 
Cf.  also  Ignatii  et  Polycarpi  Epistulae  in  the  Bibliotheca  SS.  Patrum  of 
Vizzini,  series  I,  vol.  II,  Roma,  1902.)  See  §  4  for  the  latest  English  and 
German  versions  of  the  genuine  Letters.  There  is  an  English  version  in 
Lightfoot,  ib.  ii.  539 — 570,  and  in  J.  H.  Srawley,  London,  1900,  2  vol. 
A.  Hilgenfeld,  Die  Ignatiusbriefe  und  die  neueste  Verteidigung  ihrer  Echt- 
heit, in  Zeitschr.  für  wissenschaftl.  Theologie  (1903),  xlvi.  171  — 194.  Id., 
ib.  499 — 505.  T.  Nicklift,  Three  Passages  in  SS.  Ignatius  and  Polycarp, 
in  Journal  of  Theological  Studies  (1902 — 1903),  iv.  443.  A.  N.  Jannaris, 
An  Ill-used  Passage  of  St.  Ignatius  (ad  Philad.  viii.  2),  in  Classical  Review 
(1903),  xviii.  24 — 35.  J.  Dräseke ,  Ein  Testimonium  Ignatianum,  in  Zeit- 
schrift für  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1903),  xlvi,  506 — 512.  The  Greek  text 
of  the  Long  Recension  was  first  edited  by  V.  Härtung  (Frid),  Dillingen, 
1557.  The  text  of  Migne ,  op.  cit.  v.  729—941  is  taken  from  Cotelerius, 
Patres  aevi  apost.  t.  ii.  For  new  editions  cf.  Zahn,  op.  cit.  pp.  174 — 296; 
Funk,  op.  cit.  ii.  46 — 213;  Lightfoot,  op.  cit.  ii.  709  —  857. 


32  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

For  the  author  of  the  Long  Recension,  Iiis  theological  tendencies,  and 
his  identity  with  the  compiler  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  see  Funk, 
Die  Apostolischen  Konstitutionen,  Rottenburg,  1891,  pp.  281—355.  Id., 
Kirchengeschichtliche  Abhandlungen  und  Untersuchungen  (1899),  ii.  347 
to  359;  C.  Holzhey,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1898),  Ixxx.  380 — 390; 
A.  Amelungk,  in  Zeitschr.  für  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1899),  xlii.  508 — 581 ; 
(to  the  contrary:  F.  X.  Funk,  Theologie  und  Zeit  des  Pseudo-Ignatius,  in 
Theol.  Quartalschr.  [1901],  lxxxiii.  411 — 426,  and  Id.,  Le  Pseudo-Ignace, 
in  Revue  d'hist.  ecclesiast.  [1900],  i.  61  —  65).  A.  Stahl,  Patristische  Unter- 
suchungen, II:  Ignatius  von  Antiochien,  Leipzig,  1901.  The  Latin  text  of 
«Laus  Heronis»  is  in  Migne,  PL.  v.  945 — 948;  cf.  Zahn/p.  297;  Funk  ii. 
214;  Lightfoot  ii.  893.  Lightfoot  gives  the  prayer  in  a  Lower  Egyptian 
or  Memphitic  version  (p.  881  f.),  and  attempts  a  reconstruction  of  the 
Greek  text  (p.  893  f.).  For  the  Latin  version  of  the  Long  Recension  see 
Zahn  p.  175 — 296;  Funk  ii.  47 — 213.  The  Latin  version  of  the  Mixed 
Recension  is  in  Funk,  Die  Echtheit  der  Ignatianischen  Briefe  aufs  neue 
verteidigt,  Tübingen,  1883,  p.  151 — 204,  and  in  lightfoot  ii.  597  —  652. 
F.  de  Lagarde  published  both  Latin  versions  at  Göttingen,  1882.  The 
Lightfoot  edition  contains  (ii.  659 — 687)  the  Syriac  abbreviated  recension 
of  the  three  Letters  to  Polycarp,  the  Ephesians,  and  the  Romans,  first 
made  known  in  1845  by  W.  Cureton;  it  also  contains  some  stray  Syriac 
fragments  of  the  genuine  Letters  in  their  original  form,  edited  by  W.  Wright. 
For  earlier  editions  and  recensions  of  these  Syriac  texts  see  F.  Nestle, 
Syrische  Grammatik  (Berlin,  1888),  ii.  54,  s.  v.  Ignatius  Antiochenus.  The 
Armenian  version,  derived  from  the  Syriac,  was  first  published  at  Con- 
stantinople in  1783.  It  also  appeared  at  Leipzig  in  1849,  in  J.  H.  Peter- 
manris  edition  of  the  Ignatian  Letters.  The  four  Letters  extant  in  Latin 
only  are  found  in  Migne,  PL.,  v.  941 — 946;  Zahn  pp.  297—300;  Funk 
pp.  214 — 217;  Lightfoot,  ii.  653 — 656.  (Ad.  Harnack,  Zu  Ignatius  und 
Polycarp,  in  Miscellen  [Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  new  series,  v.  3] 
[Leipzig,   1900],  pp.  80—86.) 

2.  CONTENTS  OF  THE  LETTERS.  —  On  his  way  to  martyrdom  Ignatius 
probably  embarked  at  Seleucia  for  some  port  in  Cilicia  or  Pamphylia ; 
thence,  as  his  Letters  bear  witness,  he  was  taken  by  land  through 
Asia  Minor.  At  Smyrna  there  was  a  somewhat  lengthy  halt,  and  he 
met  there  the  envoys  from  several  Christian  communities  of  Asia  Minor 
come  to  express  their  veneration  for  the  confessor  of  the  faith.  To 
the  representatives  of  Ephesus,  Magnesia,  and  Tralles,  Ignatius  gave 
Letters  for  those  communities,  in  which,  after  making  known  his  gra- 
titude, he  warned  them  to  beware  of  heretics  (Judaizers  and  Docetae, 
or  rather,  perhaps,  Judaizing  Docetae).  He  also  exhorts  them  to  be 
joyfully  submissive  to  the  ecclesiastical  authorities.  «Be.  ye  careful  to 
do  all  things  in  divine  concord  (h  bpovota  too  deoo).  This,  because 
the  bishop  presides  in  the  place  of  God,  and  the  priests  are  as  the 
senate  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  deacons  .  .  .  have  confided  to  them 
the  ministry  of  Jesus  Christ»  (Magn.,  6.  1).  «Let  all  reverence  the 
deacons  as  Jesus  Christ,  and  also  the  bishop ;  for  he  is  the  image  of 
the  Father,  but  the  priests  as  the  senate  of  God  and  the  college 
of  the  xApostles.  Without  these  (ecclesiastical  superiors)  one  cannot 
speak  of  a  church»  (Trail,  3.  1).    A  fourth  Letter  was  sent  by  Ignatius 


•  §    9-      IGNATIUS    OF    ANTIOCH.  33 

from  Smyrna  to  the  Christians  of  Rome,  to  induce  them  to  abandon 
all  attempts  to  prevent  the  execution  of  his  death-sentence.  «I  fear 
that  your  love  will  cause  me  a  damage»  (i.  2).  «For  I  shall  not 
have  such  another  occasion  to  enter  into  the  possession  of  God»  (2.  1). 
«I  am  the  wheat  of  God,  and  I  must  be  ground  by  the  teeth  of 
wild  beasts  that  I  may  become  the  pure  bread  of  Christ»  (4.  1). 
The  preamble  of  this  Letter  offers  many  difficulties.  However,  when 
he  calls  the  Roman  community  (ixxXyaia)  the  TTpoxaäypLivq  tvjq  dyaTt^Q, 
it  is  clear  that  these  words  do  not  signify  «first  in  charity»  or  in  the 
exercise  of  love,  but  rather  «presiding  over  the  society  of  love»,  i.  e. 
the  entire  Church.  The  word  dydr.-q  often  signifies  in  Ignatius  the 
entire  community  of  Christians.  —  From  Smyrna  he  went  to  Troas 
where  he  was  met  by  a  messenger  of  the  Church  of  Antioch  with 
the  news  that  the  persecution  of  the  Christians  had  ceased  in  that 
city.  From  Troas  he  wrote  to  the  Christians  of  Philadelphia  and 
Smyrna,  and  also  to  Polycarp,  the  bishop  of  the  latter  city.  In  the  first 
two  Letters  he  expresses  his  thanks  for  the  evidences  of  their  love, 
recommends  the  sending  of  messengers  to  congratulate  those  of  Antioch 
on  the  restoration  of  peace,  and  exhorts  and  warns  them  against  the 
heretical  ideas  already  mentioned.  «I  cried  out  (at  Philadelphia)  with 
a  loud  voice,  with  the  voice  of  God :  hold  fast  to  the  bishop,  to 
the  presbytery,  to  the  deacons»  (Philad.,  7.  1).  «Wherever  the  bishop 
is,  there  let  the  people  be,  as  wherever  Jesus  Christ  is,  there  is  the 
Catholic  Church»  (Smyrn.,  8.  2;  it  is  here  that  we  first  meet  with  the 
words  «Catholic  Church»  in  the  sense  of  the  entire  body  of  the 
faithful).  Ignatius  meant  to  request  the  other  communities  of  Asia 
Minor  to  express,  by  messenger  or  letter,  their  sympathies  with  the 
Christians  of  Antioch,  but  was  prevented  by  an  unexpected  and  hasty 
departure  from  Troas;  he  therefore  asks  Polycarp  to  appeal  in  his 
name  to  those  communities  of  Asia.  From  Troas  he  went  to  Neapolis, 
crossing  on  his  way  Macedonia  and  Illyria.  It  was  probably  at  Dyr- 
rhachium  (Durazzo),  or  at  Apollonia,  that  he  began  his  sea- voyage. 
From  Brindisi  he  travelled  afoot  to  Rome,  where  according  to  the 
unanimous  evidence  of  antiquity  he  reached  the  goal  of  his  desire. 
His  literary  remains  are  the  outpouring  of  a  pastoral  heart,  aflame 
with  a  consuming  love  for  Jesus  Christ  and  His  Church.  The  style 
is  original  and  extremely  vivacious,  the  expression  sonorous  and  often 
incorrect,  while  the  strong  emotions  of  the  writer  interfere  frequently 
with  the  ordinary  forms  of  expression.  Very  frequently  he  reminds 
us  of  certain  epistles  of  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles. 

Th.  Dreher,  S.  Ignatii  episc.  Antioch.  de  Christo  Deo  doctrina  (Progr.), 
Sigmaringen,  1877.  J-  Nirschl ,  Die  Theologie  des  hl.  Ignatius,  Mainz, 
1880.  J.  H.  Newman,  The  Theology  of  St.  Ignatius,  in  Hist.  Sketches  I 
(London,  1890),  v.  222 — 262.  E.  Freiherr  v.  d.  Goltz,  Ignatius  von  An- 
tiochien  als  Christ  und  Theologe,  Leipzig,  1894  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen, 

Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  3 


34  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

xii.  3).  E.  Bruston,  Ignace  d'Antioche,  ses  epitres,  sa  theologie,  Paris, 
1897.  The  term  irpoxo#7}jxev?)  trjs  a^a~-qc,  in  the  inscription  of  the  Letter  to 
the  Romans,  is  discussed  by  Ad.  Harnack ,  in  Sitzungsberichte  der  kgl. 
preuß.  Akad.  der  Wissensch.  (Berlin,  1896),  11 1 — 1 3 1 ;  J.  Chap?7ian ,  in 
Revue  Benedictine  (1896),  xiii.  385  —  400;  Funk,  Kirchengeschichtliche 
Abhandlungen  und  Untersuchungen  (Paderborn,  1897),  i.  1 — 23.  (Cf.  also 
the  superficial  and  antiquated  sketch  of  R.  Mariano,  II  Primato  del 
Pontefice  romano  istituzione  divina?  and  L'Epistola  ai  Romani  d'Ignazio 
d'  Antiochia,  in  his  II  Cristianesimo  nei  primi  tre  secoli  [Scritti  vari,  iv — v.], 
Firence,  1902,  pp.  390 — 403.) 

3.  AUTHENTICITY.  —  For  centuries  the  authenticity  of  the  Ignatian 
Letters  has  been  disputed.  The  successive  discovery  and  publication 
of  the  collections  and  recensions  described  above  caused  the  question 
to  pass  through  many  phases,  while  the  incomparable  value  of  the 
evidence  that  the  Letters,  if  authentic,  give  concerning  the  constitu- 
tion and  organization  of  the  primitive  Christian  communities  continually 
fed  the  flame  of  discussion.  Although  it  cannot  be  said  that  there 
is  at  present  an  absolute  harmony  of  opinion,  the  end  of  the  contro- 
versy is  at  hand,  since  even  the  principal  non-Catholic  scholars,  Zahn, 
Lightfoot,  Harnack,  unreservedly  maintain  that  the  Letters  are 
authentic.  The  evidence  for  their  authenticity  is  simply  overwhelming. 
Irenseus  himself  refers  to  a  passage  of  the  Letter  to  the  Romans 
(c.  4.  1)  in  the  following  words1:  «Quemadmodum  quidam  de  nostris 
dixit  propter  martyrium  in  Deum  adiudicatus  ad  bestias».  The  ro- 
mance of  Lucian  of  Samosata,  De  morte  Peregrini,  written  in  167, 
agrees  to  such  an  extent  with  the  Letters  of  Ignatius,  both  as  to 
facts  and  phraseology,  that  the  coincidence  seems  inexplicable 
except  on  the  hypothesis  that  Lucian  made  a  tacit  use  of  these 
Letters.  A  significant  phrase  in  the  Letter  of  the  Church  of  Smyrna, 
apropos  of  the  death  of  Polycarp  (c.  3) ,  has  always  recalled  an 
expression  in  the  Letter  to  the  Romans  (c.  5.  2).  Polycarp  him- 
self says  in  his  Letter  to  the  Philippians:  «The  Letters  of  Ignatius 
that  he  sent  to  us,  and  such  others  as  we  had  in  hand,  we  have 
sent  to  you,  according  to  your  wish.  They  are  added  to  this  Letter. 
You  will  find  them  very  useful;  for  they  contain  faith  and  patience 
and  much  edification  relative  to  Our  Lord.»  These  words,  written 
shortly  after  the  death  of  Ignatius,  are  so  final  and  decisive  that  the 
opponents  of  the  authenticity  of  the  Ignatian  Letters  are  obliged  to 
reject  the  Letter,  of  Polycarp  as  a  forgery,  or  at  least  to  maintain 
that  the  passages  concerning  Ignatius  are  interpolated.  They  have 
sought  to  counterbalance  external  evidence  by  objections  drawn  from 
the  Letters  themselves.  They  argue  that  the  portrait  of  the  bishop 
of  Antioch  as  presented  in  these  Letters,  has  been  disfigured  by  the 
addition  of  impossible  features;  that  heresy  was  neither  so  important 
a  matter  nor  so  fully  developed  in  the  time  of  Ignatius;    above  all, 

1  Adv.  haer.,  v.   28,  4. 


§    IO.      POLYCARP    OF    SMYRNA.  35 

that  the  ecclesiastical  constitution  exhibited  in  the  Letters  has  at- 
tained a  maturity  which  is  really  met  with  only  in  a  later  period.  It 
is  true  that  in  these  Letters  the  bishop  is  exhibited,  in  language  of 
almost  surprising  precision,  as  distinct  from  the  presbyters;  that  the 
monarchical,  and  not  the  collegiate  or  presbyteral,  constitution  of 
the  Church  is  set  forth  as  an  accomplished  fact.  But  if  Irenaeus 
could  compile  a  catalogue  of  the  bishops  of  Rome  that  goes  back  to 
the  Apostles 1,  it  becomes  impossible  to  maintain  that  the  episcopate 
began  only  with  the  second  century.  Nor  can  it  be  said  that  the 
Letters  were  forged  in  the  interest  of  episcopal  power;  the  episcopate 
is  set  forth  in  them  as  something  well-established  and  accepted,  of 
whose  legitimacy  no  one  doubts.  Still  less  can  an  argument  be 
drawn  from  the  history  of  heresy;  the  heretic  Cerinthus  flourished 
in  the  life-time  of  the  Apostle  John.  All  search  for  the  traces  of  a 
polemic  in  these  Letters  against  the  Gnosis  of  Valentinian  has 
proved  fruitless.  Finally,  the  pretended  lack  of  naturalness  in  the 
person  of  Ignatius  would  become  a  positive  mystery  if  such  a  figure 
had  been  created  by  a  forger. 

Not  long  after  the  discovery  of  the  Mixed  Recension  the  Anglican 
J.  Pearson  successfully  vindicated  the  authenticity  of  the  Seven  Letters. 
(Vindiciae  epistolarum  S.  Ignatii,  Cambridge,  1672,  Oxford,  1852;  Migne, 
PC.,  v.  37 — 473)  against  the  Reformer  J.  Dallaeus  (De  scriptis  quae  sub 
Dionysii  Areop.  et  Ignatii  Antioch.  nominibus  circumferuntur ,  Genevae, 
1666).  After  editing  (1845)  tne  Syriac  text  of  the  three  abbreviated 
Letters  to  the  Ephesians,  Romans,  and  Polycarp,  W.  Cureton  published  a 
quite  untenable  apology  for  them  as  the  genuine  Letters  of  Ignatius.  He 
maintained  that  the  longer  form  of  the  same  in  the  Mixed  Recension 
was  the  work  of  an  interpolator,  and  the  remaining  four  simply  forgeries 
(Vindiciae  Ignatianae,  London,  1846).  For  the  more  recent  literature  cf. 
J.Nirschl,  Das  Todesjahr  des  hl.  Ignatius  von  Antiochien  und  die  drei  orien- 
talischen Feldzüge  des  Kaisers  Trajan,  Passau,  1869.  Th.  Zahn,  Ignatius  von 
Antiochien,  Gotha,  1873.  In  his  Geschichte  der  altchristlichen  Literatur, 
ii.  1,  381 — 406,  Ad.  Harnack  abandoned,  as  antiquated,  the  "hypothesis  of 
his  earlier  work:  Die  Zeit  des  Ignatius  (Leipzig,  1878),  in  which  he  had 
attempted  to  place  the  death  of  Ignatius  about  138.  F.  X.  Funk,  Die  Echt- 
heit der  Ignatianischen  Briefe  aufs  neue  verteidigt,  Tübingen,  1883.  W.  D. 
Killen,  The  Ignatian  Epistles  entirely  spurious,  Edinburgh,  1866.  R.  C. 
Jenkins,  Ignatian  Difficulties  and  Historic  Doubts,  London,  1890.  D.  Völler, 
Die  Ignatianischen  Briefe,  auf  ihren  Ursprung  untersucht,  Tübingen,  1892. 
J.  Reville,  fitudes  sur  les  origines  de  l'episcopat.  La  valeur  du  temoignage 
d'Ignace  d'Antioche,  Paris,  1891.  Id.,  Les  origines  de  l'episcopat,  Part,  i 
(Paris,  1894),  442 — 520.  L.  Tonetti,  II  Peregrinus  di  Luciano  e  i  cristiani 
del  suo  tempo,  in  Miscellanea  di  storia  e  coltura  eccles.  (1904),  72 — 84. 

§   10.     Polycarp  of  Smyrna. 

I .  HIS  LIFE.  —  Irenaeus  has  preserved  some  precious  details  con- 
cerning Polycarp,  the  bishop  of  Smyrna,  to  whom  Ignatius  wrote  one 
of  his  seven   Letters.     Irenaeus   had  listened,    as  a  boy,    to  the  dis- 

1  Adv.  haer.,  iii.   3,   3. 

3* 


36  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

courses  of  the  old  bishop,  and  had  «heard  him  tell  of  his  relations 
with  John  (the  Apostle)  and  with  others  who  had  seen  the  Lord,  and 
how  he  quoted  from  their  language,  and  how  much  he  had  learned 
from  them  concerning  the  Lord  and  His  miracles  and  teaching»  i.  At 
the  end  of  154  or  at  the  beginning  of  155  Polycarp  visited  Rome, 
in  the  hope  of  coming  to  an  understanding  with  Pope  Anicetus 
concerning  the  manner  of  the  celebration  of  Easter,  «but  neither  could 
Anicetus  move  Polycarp  to  give  up  his  custom,  which  he  had  always 
observed  with  the  Apostle  John,  the  disciple  of  Our  Lord,  and  with 
the  other  Apostles  with  whom  he  had  conversed,  nor  could  Polycarp 
move  Anicetus  to  adopt  that  custom,  the  latter  declaring  that  he  was 
bound  to  keep  up  the  customs  of  his  predecessors  (t&v  rtpo  aozoo 
TTpeaßoripwv).  Nevertheless,  they  preserved  communion  with  one 
another,  and  in  order  to  do  him  honour,  Anicetus  caused  Polycarp  to 
celebrate  the  Eucharist  in  his  church,  and  they  parted  in  peace»2. 
Not  long  after  this  incident  Polycarp  died  the  death  of  a  martyr 
at  Smyrna  in  his  eighty-sixth  year.  In  an  Encyclical  Letter  the  com- 
munity of  Smyrna  made  known  to  all  Christians  his  death  and  the 
circumstances  of  his  martyrdom.  From  its  context  (c.  21;  cf.  8,  1) 
we  can  ascertain  with  approximate  certainty  that  Polycarp  died  Fe- 
bruary 23.,  in   155. 

Th.  Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  und  der 
altkirchl.  Literatur  (1891),  iv.  249—283;  (1900),  vi.  94—109.  [K.  Bihl- 
meyer,  Der  Besuch  Polykarps  bei  Anicet  und  der  Osterfeierstreit,  in  Katholik 
[1902],  i.  314 — 327.)  Concerning  the  date  of  Polycarp's  death,  cf.  Harnack, 
Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur  (1897),  ii.  1,  334—356.  P.  Corssen ,  Das 
Todesjahr  Polykarps,  in  Zeitschr.  für  neutestamentl.  Wissensch.  (1902),  iii. 
61 — 82.  For  the  encyclical  letter  of  the  community  of  Smyrna,  cf.  §  59,  2. 

2.  LETTER  TO  THE  PHILIPPIANS.  —  Irenaeus  speaks  of  Letters  sent 
by  Polycarp  «partly  to  neighbouring  communities  to  confirm  them  (in 
the  faith),  partly  to  individual  brethren  to  instruct  and  exhort  them3.» 
On  another  occasion  he  writes:  «There  is  a  very  excellent  (ixava)zd~Y]) 
letter  of  Polycarp  to  the  Philippians,  from  which  the  form  of  his  faith 
and  the  teaching  of  truth  can  be  seen  by  those  who  are  of  good  will 
and  intent  on  their  salvation»  i.  Only  fragments  of  the  original  Greek 
have  reached  us,  but  we  possess  the  entire  text  in  an  old  Latin  trans- 
lation. It  is  a  word  of  comfort  written  at  the  request  of  the  com- 
munity of  Philippi  in  Macedonia,  and  encourages  all  its  members  to 
constancy ;  it  inculcates,  moreover,  the  special  duties  of  married  people, 
of  widows,  deacons,  youths,  virgins,  and  the  clergy.  This  Letter  of 
Polycarp  is  full  of  imitations  and  reminiscencies  of  the  Letter  of 
St.   Clement  to  the  Corinthians  (c.  9,  2;    13,  2).    As  late  as  the  end 

1  Iren.,  Ep.  ad  Florin.,  in  Eus.,  Hist.  eccl.  v.  20,   6. 

2  Iren.,  Ep.  ad  Vict.,  in  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  v.   24,    16  sq. 

3  Hist,   eccl.,  v.   20,   8.  4  Adv.   haer.,   iii.   3,   4. 


§    IO.      POLYCARP    OF    SMYRNA.  3/ 

of  the  fourth  century  some  communities  af  Asia  Minor  were  wont 
to  read  it  during  divine  service 1.  Some  recent  writers  have  disputed 
its  authenticity  or  denied  its  integrity,  but  only  with  the  object  of 
crippling  its  value  as  an  evidence  of  the  authenticity  of  the  Ignatian 
Letters  (cf.  §  9,  3).  Its  authenticity  is  guaranteed  by  Irenaeus;  nor 
can  the  distinction  between  a  genuine  nucleus  and  later  accretions 
be  upheld,  in  view  of  the  striking  unity  of  its  style,  and  its  constant 
dependence  on  the  Letter  of  St.  Clement. 

The  Greek  codices  of  the  Letter  to  the  Philippians  are  all,  directly  or 
indirectly,  copies  of  one  exemplar;  all  end  at  c.  9,   2,  with  the  words  xai 

01  rjfjia?  urjj.  The  rest  of  the  Letter  (cc.  10 — 14)  is  taken  from  an  old 
Latin  translation,  itself  very  carelessly  made.  However,  the  Greek  text  of 
chapters  9  and  13  has  been  preserved  in  the  Church  History  of  Eusebius  2. 
The  Latin  translation  was  edited  by  J.  Faber  Stapulensis,  Paris,  1498.  The 
Greek  text  (c.  1 — 9)  was  first  edited  by  P.  Halloix,  Douai,  1633.  The 
Greek  text  in  Migne  (PG. ,  v.  1005 — 1016)  is  taken  from  Hefele,  Opp. 
Patr.  apost. ,  Tübingen,  1847.  The  most  important  recent  editions  are 
those  of  Zahn,  Leipzig,  1876;  Funk,  Tübingen,  1878,  1887,  1901 ;  Lightfoot, 
London,  1885,  1889;  [Hilgenfeld,  Berlin,  1902;  Vizzini,  in  the  Bibliotheca 
Sanct.  Patrum,  series  ii,  vol.  ii,  Rome,  1901 ;  cf.  §  4;  9,  1).  Zahn  re- 
translated into  Greek  the  part  that  has  reached  us  in  Latin  only.  His 
translation  has  been  improved  by  Funk  in  some  places.  Lightfoot  executed 
a  new  re-translation.  New  editions  of  the  old  Latin  version  (PG. ,  v. 
1015 — 1022)  are  found  in  Zahn  1.  c. ,  also  in  Funk,  Die  Echtheit  der 
Ignatianischen  Briefe,  Tübingen,  1883,  pp.  205 — 212.  Cf.  A.  Harnack,  Zu 
Polycarp  ad  Philipp,  ii. ,  in  Miscellen  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  new 
series,  v.  3),  pp.  86—93.  For  new  versions  of  the  Letter  to  the  Philippians 
see  §  4.  (T.  Nicklin,  Three  Passages  in  SS.  Ignatius  and  Polycarp,  in 
Journal  of  Theological  Studies  [1902 — 1903],  iv.  443.)  Funk,  Die  Echtheit 
der  Ignat.  Briefe,  14—42:  «Der  Polykarpbrief».  The  hypothesis  of  an 
interpolation  proposed  by  A.  Ritschi  (Die  Entstehung  der  altkath.  Kirche, 

2  ed.,  Bonn,  1857,  584-— 600),  was  accepted  by  G.  Volkmar,  in  his  Epist. 
Polyc.  Smyrn.  genuina,  Zürich,  1885,  and  in  Theol.  Zeitschrift  aus  der 
Schweiz  (1886),  iii.  99 — in,  also  by  A.  Hilgenfeld,  in  Zeitschrift  für 
wissenschaftl.  Theologie  (1888)  ,  xxix.  180 — 206.  J.  M.  Cotterill  found 
citations  from  this  Letter  in  the  «Pandects»  of  the  Palestinian  monk  Anti- 
ochus  (c.  620)  whereupon  he  declared  Antiochus  to  be  the  author  of  the 
Letter  of  Polycarp;  cf  Journal  of  Philology  (1891),  xix.  241 — 285.  This 
discovery  did  not  merit  the  honour  of  the  solid  refutation  from  the  pen  of 
C.  Taylor,  ib.  (1892),  xx.  65 — no.  [jf.  Turmel,  Lettre  et  martyre  de  Saint 
Polycarpe,  in  Annates  de  philosophie  ehret.   [1904t  22 — 33.) 

3.  Latin  Fragments.  —  Five  small  Latin  fragments,  current  under 
the  name  of  Polycarp,  treat  of  certain  Gospel  texts;  they  are,  according 
to  all  appearances,  spurious. 

These  fragments  were  published  by  Fr.  Feuardent  in  the  notes  to  his 
edition  of  Irenaeus  (Cologne  1596,  reprinted  1639).  They  were  taken  by 
him  from  a  Latin  Catena  on  the  four  Gospels.  The  compiler  of  the  Ca- 
tena, now  lost,  had  found  these  fragments  in  a  work  of  Victor,  bishop  of 
Capua  (f  554).     Other   recensions    of  these    fragments  are  in  Migne  (1.  c. 

1  St.  Jer.,  De  viris  illustr.,   c.    17.  2  iii.   36,    13 — 15. 


38  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

v.  1025 — 1028),  Zahn  (1.  c.  171 — 172),  and  Lightfoot  (1.  c.  1001  — 1004), 
Funk,  Patres  apostolici  (1901),  ii.  288  sq.  In  his  Geschichte  des  neu- 
testamentl.  Kanons,  i.  782  f.,  Zahn  undertook  to  defend  their  authenticity, 
with  the  exception  of  one  phrase. 

§  11.     The  Shepherd  of  Hermas. 

I.  CONTENTS.  The  longest,  and  for  form  and  contents  the  most 
remarkable  of  the  writings  of  the  so-called  Apostolic  Fathers,  is  the 
Shepherd  (7iot/irju,  Pastor)  of  Hermas.  It  contains  five  Visions  (opd- 
aetQ,  visiones),  twelve  Commandments  (ivzoAat,  mandata),  and  ten 
Similitudes  (napaßoXo.i ,  similitudines).  This  triple  division  is  only 
external,  and  does  not  affect  the  contents.  Hermas  himself,  or  the 
angel  who  speaks  to  him,  seems  in  the  last  Vision  (v,  5)  to 
distinguish  two  parts :  the  preceding  Visions  (i — iv)  that  the  Church, 
in  the  guise  of  a  Matron,  exhibits  to  the  author,  and  the  subsequent 
Mandates  and  Similitudes  expounded  to  Hermas  by  an  angel  of  penance 
in  the  garb  of  a  Shepherd.  The  true  sign  of  demarcation  is  the  organ 
of  revelation,  first  the  Matron  and  then  the  Shepherd  (Sim.  ix.  1, 
1 — 3).  It  is  the  prominence  of  the  latter  in  the  second  part  of  the  work 
that  justifies  its  peculiar  title.  It  is  true  that  he  also  appears  in  the 
first  part  of  the  book,  but  in  a  subordinate  role  and  not  in  the 
Shepherd's  guise  (cf.  Vis.  ii.  4,  1;  iii.  10,  7).  All  the  revelations 
made  to  Hermas  end  with  exhortations  to  penance,  directed  first  to 
himself  and  the  members  of  his  family,  then  to  the  Roman  Church, 
and  to  all  Christians.  This  call  to  the  penitential  life  is  justified 
throughout  by  the  imminent  persecutions  of  the  Church,  and  the  near 
coming  of  Christ  in  Judgment.  The  general  outline  of  the  work  is 
found  in  the  first  four  Visions.  The  Matron,  representative  of  the 
Church,  grows  constantly  younger,  until  she  appears  in  the  fourth 
Vision  as  a  bride  who  comes  forth  in  splendour  from  the  nuptial 
chamber.  Both  the  manner  of  the  Matron's  appearance,  and  the  re- 
creations and  instructions  that  she  gives,  exhibit  a  steady  progress 
of  penitential  exhortation.  The  third  Vision  is  by  far  the  most 
important.  It  presents  the  Communion  of  Saints,  i.  e.  those  who 
are  baptized  and  remain  faithful  to  the  grace  of  baptism,  whether 
yet  living  or  already  departed,  under  the  image  of  a  great  tower 
rising  from  the  water  and  built  of  square  and  shining  blocks.  Those 
who  through  sin  have  lost  their  baptismal  grace,  are  represented  by 
the  stones  that  lie  scattered  about,  and  which  must  be  trimmed  and 
polished  before  finding  a  place  in  the  tower.  The  Mandates  and 
Similitudes  to  which  the  fifth  Vision  serves  as  an  introduction  are 
destined  to  realize  and  explain  the  first  part  (cf.  Vis.  v.  5 ;  Sim.  ix. 
1,  1 — 3).  The  Mandates  have  for  object  faith  in  one  God  (i),  simpli- 
city (ii),  truthfulness  (iii),  chastity  both  in  and  out  of  matrimony  (iv), 
mildness  and  patience  (v),   the  discernment   of  suggestions  made  by 


§    II.      THE    SHEPHERD    OF    HERMAS.  39 

the  good  and  the  bad  angels  (vi),  fear  of  the  Lord  (vii),  temperance 
(viii),  confidence  in  God  (ix),  forbearance  from  sorrowfulness  (x), 
avoidance  of  false  prophets  (xi),  and  warfare  against  evil  desires  (xii). 
The  figurative  diction  of  the  Similitudes  recalls  the  Visions.  The 
first  is  a  warning  against  excessive  solicitude  for  temporal  goods; 
the  second  is  an  exhortation  to  charity ;  the  third  and  fourth  exhibit 
good  and  evil,  dwelling  together  for  the  present,  to  be  separated  at 
the  end  of  time;  the  fifth  extols  the  merits  of  fasting;  the  sixth 
the  necessity  of  penance;  the  seventh  explains  the  uses  of  tribulation; 
in  the  eighth  and  the  ninth  the  branches  of  the  willow  tree  and  the 
stones  of  the  tower  serve  as  illustrations  of  the  truth  that  through 
penance  the  sinner  may  once  again  come  into  living  communion  with 
the  Church,  and  thereby  secure  a  place  in  the  glorified  Church  of 
the  future.  The  tenth  ends  with  these  words:  «Through  you  the 
building  of  the  tower  has  been  interrupted;  if  you  do  not  make 
haste  to  do  good,  the  tower  will  be  finished,  and  you  will  remain 
without»  (Sim.  x.  4,  4).  In  diction  and  exposition  the  book  is  diffuse 
and  minutely  circumstantial;  at  the  same  time  it  is  popular  and 
picturesque.  Its  chief  characteristic  is  its  apocalyptic  form  and  tone. 
The  dogmatic  interest  of  the  work  lies  chiefly  in  its  teaching  con- 
cerning the  possibility  of  forgiveness  of  mortal  sins,  notably  adultery 
and  apostasy  (cf.  Vis.  iii;  Sim.  viii — ix).  It  is  only  during  the 
period  of  grace  announced  by  him  that  the  Shepherd  admits  a  for- 
giveness of  sins  by  penance  {fiETu.voiav  äjuapncbv,  Mand.  iv.  3,  3);  in 
all  future  time  there  shall  be  but  one  forgiveness  of  sins  through 
baptism  (jusTavota  füa,  Mand.  iv.  1,  8;  3,  6).  The  still  open  way  of 
penance  is  said  to  be  long  and  difficult  (Sim.  vi — viii).  The  Shepherd 
is  the  earliest  witness  to  the  «Stations»  or  degrees  of  penitential 
satisfaction  (Sim.  v,   1,   1.  2). 

2.  ITS  ORIGIN.  The  author  of  the  Shepherd  frequently  calls 
himself  Hermas  (Vis.  1.  1,  4;  2,  2),  nor  does  he  add  to  that  name 
anything  more  definite.  He  lived  in  very  modest  circumstances  at 
Rome  where  he  cultivated  a  field  in  the  vicinity  of  the  city  (Vis.  iii. 
1,  2;  iv.  1,  2).  It  was  there,  on  the  road  from  Rome  to  Cumae, 
that  he  received  the  revelations  of  the  Matron.  At  the  end  of  the 
second  Vision,  there  is  a  statement  of  especial  interest.  Hermas  is 
commissioned  by  the  Matron  to  make  known  her  revelations  to  all 
the  elect.  «Make  ready»,  she  says,  «two  copies,  and  send  one  to 
Clement,  and  one  to  Grapte.  Clement  will  send  it  (the  little  book) 
to  the  cities  that  are  without;  Grapte  will  instruct  the  widows  and 
the  orphans;  but  thou  wilt  read  it  in  this  city  to  the  priests  who 
are  placed  over  the  Church»  (Vis.  ii.  4,  3).  Grapte  seems  to  have 
been  a  deaconess.  Clement  is  represented  as  Pope;  he  is  the  head 
of  the  Roman  Church,  and  it  is  his  duty  to  conduct  its  communi- 
cations with   other  churches.     Hermas   is   certainly   speaking   of  Cle- 


40  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

ment  of  Rome  (§  8),  and  refers  very  probably  to  the  Letter  of 
Clement  to  the  Corinthians  that  was  highly  esteemed  by  the  primitive 
Christian  churches.  Hennas  presents  himself,  therefore,  as  a  con- 
temporary of  Clement.  Now,  the  author  of  the  Muratorian  Fragment 
says  (in  Zahn's  recension) :  «Pastorem  vero  nuperrime  temporibus 
nostris  in  urbe  Roma  Hermas  conscripsit,  sedente  (in)  cathedra  urbis 
Romae  ecclesiae  Pio  episcopo  fratre  ejus;  et  ideo  legi  eum  quidem 
oportet,  se  publicare  vero  in  ecclesia  populo  neque  inter  prophetas 
completos  numero  neque  inter  apostolos  in  finem  temporum  potest. » 
However  difficult  and  obscure  these  words  may  be,  it  is  very  clear 
that  the  author  of  the  Fragment  wishes  to  exclude  the  Shepherd 
from  the  canon  of  biblical  writings,  because  he  is  no  other  than  the 
brother  of  Pope  Pius  I  (c.  140 — 155).  Modern  critics  are  practically 
unanimous  in  agreeing  with  the  author  of  the  Fragment;  there  is, 
indeed ,  no  good  reason  for  rejecting  his  evidence.  It  is  true  that 
the  author  of  the  Shepherd  is  thereby  declared  guilty  of  a  deceit; 
he  was  not  a  contemporary  of  Clement,  for  he  did  not  write  his 
work  before  140 — 155.  That  the  Shepherd  was  written  about  the 
middle  of  the  second  century,  though  not  absolutely  certain,  is 
highly  probable,  and  certain  intrinsic  evidence  confirms  it.  The 
special  predilection  of  the  author  for  the  question  of  forgiveness  of 
mortal  sins,  and  his  diffuse  treatment  of  the  subject,  suggest  that 
he  was  aware  of  the  Montanist  movement,  at  least  in  its  beginnings. 
He  is  an  opponent  of  the  Gnostics  (Vis.  iii.  7,  1;  Sim.  viii.  6,  5; 
ix.  22,  1  :  SsAovtsq  navra  ytvwaxsiv  xat  oödev  oXcüq  yivwoxouai).  The 
persecution  of  the  Christians  to  which  he  several  times  refers  as 
having  ceased,  cannot  be  that  of  Domitian  (81 — 96);  it  must  there- 
fore be  that  of  Trajan  (98 — 1 17).  The  subsequent  long  period  of 
peace,  during  which  the  zeal  of  many  Christians  grew  deplorably 
cold  (Vis.  ii.  2 — 3),  was  surely  the  reign  of  Antoninus  Pius  (138 — 161). 
Finally,  the  Christianity  to  which  Hermas  addresses  himself,  has  al- 
ready grown  old;  laxity  and  secularism  have  set  in;  it  is  clearly 
necessary  to  renew  ecclesiastical  discipline,  particularly  as  to  the 
restoration  of  apostates  to  the  communion  of  the  Church.  In  these 
dismal  traits  it  is  impossible  to  recognize  the  Church  of  the  first 
century.  Some  modern  scholars  have  denied  that  the  Shepherd  is 
from  the  hand  of  one  author.  De  Champagny  postulates  two,  Hilgen- 
feld  three;  their  hypotheses  have  found  few  followers.  The  constant 
similarity  of  style  and  vocabulary,  of  tendency  and  situation,  bears 
evidence  to  the  original  unity  of  the  work.  We  must  not,  however, 
look  on  it  as  composed  at  one  sitting;  rather  was  it  put  together 
piecemeal,  and  grew  to  its  present  size  by  the  gradual  juxtaposition 
of  smaller  writings  (Vis.  v.  5;  Sim.  ix.  1,  I  ff;  x.  1,  1).  Funk  has 
shown  that  there  is  no  foundation  for  Spitta's  imaginary  discovery 
of  a  Jewish  work  as  the  basis  of  the  Shepherd. 


§    II.      THE    SHEPHERD    OF    HERMAS.  4 1 

3.  HISTORY  OF  THE  WORK.  Irenaeus  introduces1  a  quotation 
from  the  Shepherd  with  the  significant  formula  elnev  ij  ypayq.  Cle- 
ment of  Alexandria  made  considerable  use  of  the  work  and  seems 
to  have  appreciated  it  highly.  Origen  thought  the  author  identical 
with  the  Hermas  of  Romans  xvi.  14,  and  says  expressly  that  he  con- 
siders it  a  divinely  inspired  work2:  «quae  scriptura  valde  mihi  utilis 
videtur  et,  ut  puto,  divinitus  inspirata».  Yet  he  was  aware  that  it 
was  not  generally  admitted  as  such3,  and  that  some  treated  it  with 
contempt  *.  Therefore,  he  adds  to  his  quotation  the  qualifying  phrase : 
«si  cui  tarnen  scriptura  ilia  recipienda  videtur».  Even  in  the  fourth 
century  it  was  looked  on  in  Egypt  and  in  Palestine  as  a  manual 
quite  suited  to  the  instruction  of  the  catechumens 5.  Its  reputation 
passed  away  quicker  in  Italy  and  Africa.  In  the  former  country 
the  author  of  the  Muratorian  Fragment  is  very  positive  in  his  rejection 
of  it  (see  above  p.  38).  About  .the  end  of  the  second  century,  it  must 
have  been  widely  held  in  the  Western  Church  that  the  work  had  no 
canonical  authority,  and  deserved  only  limited  confidence.  Only 
thus  can  we  find  some  explanation  for  the  attitude  of  Tertullian  who 
held  the  Shepherd  to  be  «scriptura»  while  he  was  a  Catholic6,  but 
when  he  became  a  Montanist,  could  thus  address  Pope  Callixtus: 
«Cederem  tibi,  si  scriptura  Pastoris,  quae  sola  moechos  amat,  divino 
instrumento  meruisset  incidi,  si  non  ab  omni  concilio  ecclesiarum, 
etiam  vestrarum,  inter  apocrypha  et  falsa  iudicaretur. »  7  Thenceforward 
interest  in  the  Shepherd  dwindled  away  in  the  west,  and  it  passed 
so  thoroughly  out  of  general  use  that  St.  Jerome  could  say  that 
it  was  almost  unknown  among  the  Latins;  «apud  Latinos  paene 
ignotus  est»  8. 

4.  Text-Tradition  and  Editions.  —  The  first  to  discover  a  codex  of 
the  Greek  text  of  the  Shepherd  was  the  well-known  forger  C.  Simonides 
(f  1867).  The  manuscript  was  discovered  by  him  at  Mount  Athos  and  dates 
from  the  fourteenth  or  fifteenth  century.  Three  folios  of  this  codex,  and  a 
very  untrustworthy  copy  of  the  remainder,  made  by  Simonides,  belong 
since  1856  to  the  University  of  Leipzig.  The  conclusion  of  the  work  is 
lacking  (Sim.  ix.  30,  3 — x.  4,  5).  This  manuscript,  or  rather  its  Lipsian 
copy,  was  edited  by  Tischendorf  in  Dressel's  edition  of  the  Apostolic 
Fathers  (Leipzig,  1857,  1863)  and  separately  ib.  1856.  (Simonides  had  sold 
to  the  Leipzig  Library,  not  a  correct  copy  of  the  manuscript,  but  one 
interpolated  by  himself,  with  the  help  of  an  old  Latin  version  of  the 
Shepherd  known  as  the  Vulgata,  and  some  quotations  from  the  Greek 
Fathers.  Flis  text  was  published  as  genuine,  Leipzig,  1856,  by  R.  Anger 
and  W.  Dindorf.  The  deceit  was  at  once  laid  bare,  and  in  the  same 
year  the  Library  acquired  a  correct  copy  of  the  manuscript.)  The  Codex 
Sinaiticus   (§  7 ,    4)    contains   the    first    part   of  the    Shepherd   (about    one 

1  Adv.  haer.,  iv.   20,   2.  2  Comm.  in  Rom.,  x.  31. 

3   Comm.  in  Matth.,  xiv.   21.  *  De  principiis,   iv.    II. 

5  Äthan.,  Ep.  fest.  39  an.  365  ;   Bus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  iii.  3,   6. 

6  De  oratione,   c.   16.  7  De  pudic.,  c.   10;  cf.  c.   20. 
8  De  viris  illustr.,   c.    10. 


42  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

fourth;  as  far  as  Mand.  iv.  3,  6).  With  the  aid  of  the  Leipzig  manuscript, 
the  Codex  Sinaiticus,  and  a  more  or  less  thorough  use  of  such  other 
helps  as  translations  and  citations,  several  editions  of  the  Shepherd  soon 
appeared:  Hilgenfeld ,  Leipzig,  1866,  2.  ed.  1881 ;  v.  Gebhardt  and 
Harnack ,  Leipzig,  1877;  Funk,  Tübingen,  1878,  1887,  1901 ;  cf.  §  4. 
J.  Dräseke  published  in  Zeitschr.  fur  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1887),  xxx. 
172 — 184,  the  conclusion  of  the  Shepherd,  from  Sim.  ix.  30,  3  to  the  end, 
in  a  Greek  text  that  was  based  on  a  work  of  Simonides:  '0p&o8o£<i>v  CEX- 
Xtqvcdv  frsoXoytxal  ?pacpal  tswaftsc,  London,  1859.  Hilgenfeld  soon  followed 
with  an  edition  of  the  entire  Greek  text,  Leipzig,  1887.  Unfortunately 
this  Greek  conclusion  of  the  Shepherd  is  a  forgery  of  Simonides,  as  Funk 
has  demonstrated  in  Theol.  Quartalschrift  (1888),  lxx.  51 — 71.  A  more  exact 
knowledge  of  the  Athos  codex  can  be  found  in  Lambros  and  Robinson: 
A  collation  of  the  Athos  Codex  of  the  Shepherd  of  Hennas  by  Spyridion 
P.  Lambros;  translated  and  edited  by  J.  A.  Robinson,  Cambridge,  1888. 
Lambros  reproduced  two  pages  of  the  Codex,  in  Byzantinische  Zeitschrift 
(1893),  ii.  609  ff.  Two  small  (very  imperfect)  fragments  of  the  Greek  text 
(Sim.  ii.  7,  10;  iv.  2 — 5)  are  preserved  in  a  papyrus-roll  belonging  to  the 
Berlin  Museum.  For  a  fac-simile  of  the  text  cf.  U.  Wilcken,  Tafeln  zur  älteren 
griechischen  Paläographie ,  Leipzig,  1891,  Plate  iii.  See  also  Diels  and 
Harnack,  in  Sitzungsberichte  der  kgl.  preuß.  Akad.  d.  Wissensch.,  Berlin, 
1891,  427 — 431 ;  A.  Ehrhard,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1892),  Ixxiv,  294 — 303. 
Until  1856,  only  one  ancient  Latin  translation  was  known,  published  at 
Paris  in  15 13  by  J.  Fab  er  Stapulensis.  It  is  usually  called  the  «Vul- 
gata»,  to  distinguish  it  from  the  one  mentioned  below.  The  last  edition  of 
it  was  published  by  Hilgenfeld,  Leipzig,  1873.  Its  numerous  codices  are 
described  by  v.  Gebhardt  and  Harnack  in  their  edition  of  the  Greek  text 
(Leipzig,  1877),  pp.  xiv — xxii;  cf.  HDelehaye,  in  the  Bulletin  critique  (1894), 
pp.  14—16,  concerning  a  new  manuscript  of  the  same.  J.  van  den  Gheyn, 
Un  manuscrit  de  l'ancienne  version  latine  du  Pasteur  d'Hermas,  in  Museon, 
new  series  (1902),  iii.  274—277.  A  second  Latin  translation,  the  so-called 
«Palatina»,  was  published  by  Dressel  in  his  edition  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers, 
Leipzig,  1857  (1863),  from  a  Codex  Falatinus  nunc  Vaticanus,  of  the  four- 
teenth century.  It  was  incorporated,  with  important  corrections,  in  Gebhardt 
and  Harnack' s  edition  of  the  Greek  text,  Leipzig,  1877.  As  to  the  text  of  this 
version  cf.  Funk,  in  Zeitschrift  für  die  Österreich.  Gymnasien  (1885),  xxxvi. 
245 — 249.  It  is  generally  admitted  that  the  Vulgata  version  dates  from  the 
second  century,  and  that  the  Palatina  was  made  with  the  aid  of  the  Vulgata 
in  the  fifth.  For  a  different  opinion  cf.  J.  Haussleiter ,  De  versionibus 
Pastoris  Hermae  latinis  (Diss,  inaug.),  Erlangen,  1884.  An  Ethiopic  trans- 
lation derived  from  the  Greek,  made  probably  in  the  sixth  century,  was 
published  by  A.  d'Abbadie,  Leipzig,  i860  (Abhandlungen  für  die  Kunde 
des  Morgenlandes,  ii.  1).  G.  H  Schodde,  Hermä  Nabi:  The  Ethiopic  version 
of  Pastor  Hermae  examined,  Leipzig,  1876  (Diss,  inaug.),  is  a  superficial 
and  unreliable  work. 

5.  recent  literature.  —  For  German  and  English  translations  of  the 
Shepherd,  cf.  §  4.  There  is  an  English  translation  by  Fr.  Crombie  in 
Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (Am.  ed.  1885),  ii.  323 — 435.  E.  Gaäb,  Der  Hirt 
des  Hermas.  Ein  Beitrag  zur  Patristik,  Basel,  1866.  T/i.  Zahn,  Der  Hirt 
des  Hermas  untersucht,  Gotha,  1868.  G.  Heyne,  Quo  tempore  Hermae 
Pastor  scriptus  sit  (Diss,  inaug.),  Regiomonti,  1872.  HM.  Th.  Behm, 
Über  den  Verfasser  der  Schrift,  welche  den  Titel  «Hirt»  führt,  Rostock, 
1876.  J.  Nirschl,  Der  Hirt  des  Hermas.  Eine  historisch-kritische  Unter- 
suchung, Passau,  1879.  ^'  Brüll,  Der  Hirt  des  Hermas  nach  Ursprung 
und  Inhalt  untersucht,    Freiburg,    1882.      R.  Schenk,  Zum  ethischen  Lehr- 


§    12.      PAPIAS    OF    HIERAPOLIS.  43 

begriff  des  Hirten  des  Hermas  (Programm),  Aschersleben,  1886.  A.  Link, 
Christi  Person  und  Werke  im  Hirten  des  Hermas  (Diss,  inaug.) ,  Mar- 
burg, 1886.  Id.,  Die  Einheit  des  Pastor  Hermae,  ib.,  1888.  P.  Baum- 
gärtner, Die  Einheit  des  Hermas-Buches,  Freiburg,  1889.  E.  Hückstädt, 
Der  Lehrbegriff  des  Hirten.  Ein  Beitrag  zur  Dogmengeschichte  des 
2.  Jahrh.,  Anklam,  1889.  C.  Taylor,  The  Witness  of  Hermas  to  the  Four 
Gospels,  London,  1892.  F.  Spitta,  Zur  Geschichte  und  Literatur  des  Ur- 
christentums. Vol.  ii.  Der  Brief  des  Jakobus:  Studien  zum  Hirten  des 
Hermas,  Göttingen,  1896.  Against  Spitta  cf.  Funk,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr. 
(1899),  lxxxi.  321 — 360.  D.  Völter,  Die  Visionen  des  Hermas,  die  Sibylle 
und  Clemens  von  Rom,  Berlin,  1900.  H.  A.  v.  Bakel,  De  Compositie 
van  den  Pastor  Hermae  (Proefschrift) ,  Amsterdam,  1900  (the  latter  two 
maintain  with  Spitta  a  Jewish  basis  of  the  Shepherd).  U.  Benigni ,  II 
Pastore  di  Erma  e  1'  ipercritica ,  in  Bessarione,  IV  (1899 — I9°°)>  v°l-  vi- 
pp.  233 — 248.  B.  Heurtier,  Le  dogme  de  la  Trinite  dans  l'epitre  de  S.  Clement 
de  Rome  et  le  Pasteur  d'Hermas,  Lyon,  1900.  J.  Riville,  La  valeur  du 
temoignage  historique-  du  Pasteur  d'Hermas,  Paris,  1900.  A.  Stahl,  Patri- 
stische  Untersuchungen,  vol.  i. — iii.  Der  «Hirt»  des  Hermas,  Leipzig,  1901. 
P.  Batiffol,  Hermas  et  le  probleme  moral  au  second  siecle,  in  Revue  bibHque 
(1901),  x.  337—351.  jf.  Leipoldt,  Der  Hirt  des  Hermas  in  saidischer  Über- 
setzung, in  Berliner  Sitzungsberichte  (1903),  pp.  261 — 268.  J.  Benazech, 
Le  prophetisme  chretien,  depuis  les  origines  jusqu'au  «Pasteur»  d'Hermas 
(These),  Cahors,  1901.  Batiffol,  fitudes  d'histoire  et  de  theologie  positive, 
Paris,  1902,  pp.  45 — 68.  Funk,  Zum  Pastor  Hermä,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr., 
(1903),  lxxxv.  639 — 640.  The  Christology  of  Hermas  is  treated  by  Funk 
in  his  second  edition  (1901)  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  i.  cxxxix — cxliii. 
V.  Schweitzer,  Der  Pastor  Hermae  und  die  Opera  supererogatoria,  in  Theol. 
Quartalschr.  (1904),  lxxxvi.  539 — 556. 

§  12.     Papias  of  Hierapolis. 

Papias,  Bishop  of  Hierapolis,  «a  hearer»  of  the  Apostle  John  and 
friend  of  Polycarp  of  Smyrna  \  wrote,  apparently  about  130,  «Expla- 
nations of  the  sayings  of  the  Lord»  (Xoyiaiv  xuptaxatv  eq-rj-f/jaeiq)  in 
five  books  2.  Some  small  fragments  of  them  have  reached  us  through 
citations  and  narrations  of  later  writers  as  Irenaeus  and  Eusebius. 
Prescinding  from  the  hypothesis  (postulated  by  the  opening  words  in 
Eusebius)3  that  these  sayings  were  taken  not  only  from  the  Gospel- 
text  but  also  from  oral  tradition,  the  character  of  the  work  cannot 
be  determined  with  certainty.  Eusebius  is  surely  wrong  when  from 
these  same  words  he  concludes,  against  Irenaeus,  that  Papias  did 
not  know  the  Apostles,  and  that  the  «presbyter»  John,  whose  con- 
temporary he  declares  himself  to  be,  was  another  than  the  Apostle 
John.  The  traditions  handed  down  by  Papias  concerning  the  origin 
of  the  first  two  Gospels  are  well-known  and  have  given  rise  to  much 
controversy4.  Eusebius  believed  Papias  to  be  a  man  of  very  limited 
mental  powers,  who  accepted  many  things  that  pertained  to  the 
domain  of  fable  ([lüftixcoTepa),  especially  a  millenarian  reign  of  Christ 

1  Iren.,  Adv.  haer.,  v.   33,  4.  2  Bus.,  Hist,  eccl.,   iii.   39,    1. 

3  Ib.,  iii.  39,  3—4.  4  Ib.,  iii.  39,    15—16. 


44  FIRST    PERIOD.      SECOND    SECTION. 

on  earth  beginning  with  the  resurrection  of  the  just,  a  belief  that  he 
acquired  through  incapacity  to  comprehend  the  figurative  expressions 
of  the  apostolic  writers  *. 

For  the  latest  trace  of  the  work  of  Papias  cf.  G.  Bickell,  in  Zeitschrift 
für  kath.  Theol.  (1879),  iii.  799 — 803.  The  fragments  of  Papias  may  be 
found  in  M.  J.  Routh,  Reliquiae  sacrae,  2.  ed.  (Oxford,  1846 — 1848),  i. 
3 — 44  [Migne,  PG.,  v.  1255 — 1262);  Hilgenfeld,  in  Zeitschr.  für  wissen schaftl. 
Theol.  (1875),  xviii.  231 — 270;  Gebhardt  and  Harnack,  Barnabae  epist. 
(1878),  pp.  87 — 104;  Funk,  Opp.  Patrum  apostol.  (1881),  ii.  276 — -300. 
Cf.  Pitra,  Analecta  sacra  (1884),  ii.  155 — 161  \  C.  de  Boor,  in  Texte  und 
Untersuchungen  (1888),  v.  2,  165 — 184;  E.  Preuschen,  Antilegomena  (Gießen, 
1 901),  pp.  54—63.  The  English  translation  of  Roberts  and  Donaldson  is 
in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (Am.  ed.  1885),  i.  153 — 155.  —  Zahn,  Papias  von 
Hierapolis,  in  Theol.  Studien  und  Kritiken  (1866),  xxxix.  649 — 696.  Id., 
Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  i.  2,  849 — 903;  ii.  2,  790 — 797.  Id., 
Forschungen  zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  (1900),  vi.  109 — 157. 
W.  Weiffenbach,  Das  Papias-Fragment  bei  Eusebius  (Kirchengeschichte,  m. 
39,  3 — 4),  Gießen,  1874.  Id. ,  Die  Papias-Fragmente  über  Markus  und 
Matthäus,  Berlin,  1878.  C.  L.  leimbach,  Das  Papias-Fragment  [Eus.,  Hist, 
eccl.;  iii.  39,  3 — 4),  Gotha,  1875.  A.  Hilgenfeld,  Papias  von  Hierapolis 
und  die  neueste  Evangelienforschung,  in  Zeitschr.  für  wissenschaftl.  Theol. 
(1886),  xxix.  257 — 291.  A.  Baumstark,  Zwei  syrische  Papiaszitate,  in  Oriens 
Christianus  1902,  pp.  352 — 357.  Th.  Mommsen,  Papianisches,  in  Zeitschr. 
für  die  neutestamentl.  Wissenschaft  (1902),  iii.  156 — 159.  Ad.  Hartiack, 
Pseudo-Papianisches,  ib.  pp.   159 — 166. 


SECOND  SECTION. 

THE  APOLOGETIC  LITERATURE  OF  THE  SECOND 

CENTURY. 

§  13.     Preliminary  Observations. 

If  the  ecclesiastical  literature  of  the  second  century  wears  an  ex- 
clusively apologetic  air,  this  results,  quite  naturally,  from  the  circum- 
stances of  that  period.  «The  Christians  are  opposed  by  the  Jews  as 
strangers  (älkoipuhu),  and  are  persecuted  by  the  heathens»  2.  Calumnies 
of  every  kind  (concubitus  Oedipodei,  epulae  Thyesteae,  Onocoetes), 
and  the  ridicule  and  mockery  of  eminent  writers  like  Lucian  and 
Celsus,  prejudiced  and  irritated  public  opinion  against  the  Christians. 
The  mob  was  stirred  to  violent  outbreaks  of  hate  by  the  heathen 
priests,  magicians  of  every  kind,  and  Jews.  The  antique  state,  with 
whose  framework  polytheism  was  intimately  interwoven,  saw  itself 
daily  more  and  more  impelled  by  the  instinct  of  self-preservation  to 
undertake  a  campaign  of  extermination  against  the  Christians. 

It  was  amid  these  conditions  that  the  writings  of  the  Apologists 
arose.  It  is  true  that  they  are  also  more  or  less  positive  attacks 
on  heathenism,  in  so  far  as  they  employ  not  only  defensive  but  offen- 

1  Ib.,  iii.   39,    11  — 13.  . 2  Ep.  ad  Diognetum,   5,    17. 


§13.      PRELIMINARY    OBSERVATIONS.  45 

sive  weapons.  In  their  exposition  of  the  nature  and  contents  of  the 
Christian  religion,  they  generally  furnish  only  so  much  explanation 
as  seems  necessary  to  defend  themselves  from  the  calumnies  and  pre- 
judices of  their  opponents.  But  since  they  also  aim  at  setting  forth 
the  relations  of  Christianity  to  paganism,  and  appeal  frequently  to 
the  germs  of  truth  contained  in  the  latter,  they  offer  the  first  con- 
tributions to  the  establishment  of  an  harmonious  fusion  of  the  teachings 
of  reason  and  those  of  revelation;  thereby  they  prepared  the  way 
for  theology  or  the  science  of  faith.  Although  originally  addressed 
to  a  heathen  society,  it  was  in  Christian  circles  that  from  the  beginning 
the  apologists  sought  and  found  the  majority  of  their  readers.  For- 
mally, they  usually  imitate  contemporary  discourses,  such  as  were 
then  carefully  worked  out  according  to  the  rules  of  Greek  rhetoricians 
or  sophists,  whose  art  had  entered  upon  a  kind  of  renaissance  of  fame 
and  glory  in  the  century  of  Hadrian  and  the  Antonines. 

The  writings  directed  against  the  Jews  are  much  fewer  in  number. 
Those  that  have  reached  us  are  in  the  form  of  dialogues,  and  are 
less  intent  on  the  refutation  of  Jewish  accusations  against  the  Chris- 
tians than  on  the  confirmation  of  the  latter  in  their  conviction  that 
the  Law  of  Moses  had  only  a  temporary  purpose  and  authority.  The 
blossoms  of  the  Old  Law  had  reached  their  full  fruitage  in  the  New 
Dispensation. 

Complete  editions  of  the  Greek  Apologists  were  brought  out  by  F.  Morellns, 
Paris,  1615  (reprinted  Paris,  1636;  Cologne  1686);  the  Benedictine  Pru- 
dentius  Mar  anus,  Paris,  1742  (reprinted  Venice,  1747);  J.  C.  Th.  de  Otto, 
Corpus  apologetarum  christianorum  saec.  II,  9  voll. ,  Jenae,  1847 — 1872 
(the  first  five  volumes,  containing  the  works  of  St.  Justin  Martyr,  were  re- 
published 1876 — 1 881).  The  text  of  the  Apologists  in  Gallandi,  Bibl.  vet. 
Patr.,  i. — ii.,  and  in  Migne,  PG.,  vi.,  is  taken  from  the  edition  of  Maranus. 
A  valuable  contribution  to  the  textual  criticism  of  these  writings,  from  the 
pen  of  J.  H.  Noltes,  is  found  in  Migne  (col.   1705— 1816). 

Ad.  Harnack,  Die  Überlieferung  der  griechischen  Apologeten  des  2.  Jahr- 
hunderts in  der  alten  Kirche  und  im  Mittelalter,  in  Texte  und  Unter- 
suchungen, etc.  (Leipzig,  1882),  i.  1—2.  O.  von  Gebhardt,  Zur  handschrift- 
lichen Überlieferung  der  griechischen  Apologeten,  ib.  1883,  i.  3,  155 
to  196.  Harnack  and  von  Gebhardt  have  shown  that,  with  the  exception 
of  the  writings  of  St.  Justin,  the  three  books  of  Theophilus  ad  Autolycum, 
and  the  «Irrisio»  of  Hermias,  the  greater  part  of  the  manuscripts  of  the 
second  and  third  century  Greek  Apologists  that  have  reached  us  come 
down,  directly  or  indirectly,  from  one  (no  longer  perfect)  prototype,  the 
Arethas-Codex  of  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale  at  Paris  (cod.  Par.  gr.  451), 
written  in  the  year  914,  by  commission  of  Arethas,  bishop  of  Caesarea.  This 
discovery  has  opened  up  a  new  horizon  to  the  textual  criticism  of  the 
Apologies.  In  the  fourth  volume  of  the  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  (1888 
1 89 1  1893)  are  to  be  found  editions  of  the.  Apology  of  Tatian  by 
E.  Schwartz ,  of  the  writings  of  Athenagoras  by  the  same ,  and  of  the 
Apology  of  Aristides  by  E.  Hennecke.  —  J.  Donaldson,  A  Critical  History 
of  Christian  Literature  and  Doctrine  from  the  death  of  the  Apostles  to 
the  Nicene  Council,  vol.  ii. — iii,  The  Apologists,   London,   1866.    H.  Dem- 


4-6  FIRST    PERIOD.       SECOND    SECTION. 

bowski,  Die  Quellen  der  christlichen  Apologetik  des  2.  Jahrhunderts,  Part  i: 
Die  Apologie  Tatians,  Leipzig,  1878.  G.  Schmitt,  Die  Apologie  der  drei 
ersten  Jahrhunderte  in  historisch-systematischer  Darstellung,  Mainz,  1890. 
J.  Zahn,  Die  apologetischen  Grundgedanken  in  der  Literatur  der  drei 
ersten  Jahrhunderte  systematisch  dargestellt,  Würzburg,  1890.  Cf.  R.  Ma- 
riano, Le  apologie  nei  primi  tre  secoli  della  Chiesa :  le  cagioni  e  gli  effetti, 
in  II  Cristianesimo  nei  primi  tre  secoli  (Scritti  vari,  v.),  Florence,  1902, 
pp.  7 — 83.  On  the  anti-Judaizing  literature  of  the  primitive  Church,  cf. 
Harnack,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  (1883),  i.  3,  56 — 74;  A.  C.McGiffert, 
A  Dialogue  between  a  Christian  and  a  Jew,  New  York,   1889,  pp.   1 — 47. 

§  14.     Quadratus. 

The  most  ancient  Apology  known  to  us  is  that  of  Quadratus, 
a  disciple  of  the  Apostles.  It  was  written  about  124,  and  was 
presented  to  the  Emperor  Hadrian  on  the  occasion  of  a  persecution 
of  the  Christians1.  Quadratus  is  rightly  identified  with  that  disciple 
of  the  Apostles  who  was  endowed  with  the  gift  of  prophecy  and  was, 
to  all  appearances,  a  resident  of  Asia  Minor 2.  St.  Jerome  errs  when 
he  identifies  him3  with  Quadratus,  bishop  of  Athens,  who  lived  in 
the  reign  of  Marcus  Aurelius  (161  — 180)4.  The  sole  extant  fragment 
of  the  Apology  of  Quadratus  is  a  citation  in  Eusebius5. 

For  Quadratus  and  his  Apology  cf.  Routh,  Reliquiae  sacrae,  2.  ed.,  i. 
69 — 79;  de  Otto,  Corpus  apologetarum  christ.  (1872),  ix.  333 — 341.  See  also 
Th.  Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  etc.  (1900), 
vi.  41 — 53 ;  Funk,  Patres  App.  i.  376;  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl. 
Literatur,  i.  95  f.;  ii.  1,  269 — 271  \  Bardenhewer  in  Kirchenlexikon  of  Wetzer 
and  Weite,  2.  ed.,  x.  645—647. 

§   15.     Aristides  of  Athens. 

Until  1878  the  Apology  of  Aristides  of  Athens  mentioned  by  Eu- 
sebius 6  was  looked  upon  as  hopelessly  lost.  In  that  year  the  Mechi- 
tarists  of  San  Lazzaro  (near  Venice)  published  a  fragment  of  an  Ar- 
menian translation  of  the  same.  In  1891  a  complete  Syriac  trans- 
lation was  made  known  by  Rendel  Harris;  contemporaneously  a 
Greek  revision  of  the  text  was  edited  by  Armitage  Robinson.  The 
latter  text,  which  has  reached  us  in  the  seventh-century  romance 
of  Barlaam  and  Joasaph  (cc.  26 — 27) 7,  offers  many  corrections, 
especially  abridgments  of  the  original.  The  Syriac  translation  has 
been  accepted  as  a  faithful  and  reliable  witness  of  the  original  con- 
cept of  the  Apology.  The  Armenian  translation  was  also  made  from 
the  Greek,    although  it   deals  quite  freely  with  the  original,    as  may 

1  Eus.,  Chron.   ad  a.  Abrah.   2140:   Hist,   eccl.,   iv.  3,    1—2. 

2  Ib.,  iii.   37,    I  ;  v.    17,   2. 

3  De  viris  illustr.,   c.    19:  Ep.   70  ad  Magnum,  c.  4. 

4  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.   23,   3.  5  Ib.,  iv.   3,   2 

6  Chron.  ad  a.  Abrah.  2140 :  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.  3,  3;  cf.  Hieron.,  De  viris  illustr., 
c.  20;  Ep.   70,  4. 

7  Migne,  PG.,  xcvi.   110S— 11 24. 


§    15-     ARISTIDES    OF    ATHENS.  47 

be  seen  from  the  two  chapters  (i — 2)  of  the  preserved  fragment. 
From  the  inscription  of  the  Syriac  translation  it  seems  fairly  certain 
that  the  original  was  offered  to  the  Emperor  Antoninus  Pius  (138 — 161). 
Eusebius,  who  seems  not  to  have  read  it,  believed  that  the  Apology 
had  been  presented  to  Hadrian.  The  scope  of  the  work  is  to  prove 
that  the  Christians  alone  possess  the  true  knowledge  of  God.  After 
a  brief  exposition  of  the  idea  of  God,  as  it  is  forced  on  the  human 
mind  by  the  study  of  nature  (c.  1),  the  author  invites  the  Emperor 
to  look  out  upon  the  world  and  examine  the  faith  in  God  exhibited 
by  the  different  races  of  humanity,  Barbarians,  Greeks,  Jews,  and 
Christians  (c.  2).  The  Barbarians  adore  God  under  the  form  of 
perishable  and  changeable  elements  (cc.  3 — 7) :  earth,  water,  fire, 
the  winds,  the  sun ;  the  Greeks  attribute  to  their  gods  their  own 
human  frailties  and  passions  (cc.  8 —  1 3) ;  the  Jews  believe  in  one  only 
God,  but  they  serve  angels  rather  than  Him  (c.  14).  The  Christians 
rejoice  in  the  possession  of  the  full  truth,  and  manifest  the  same  in 
their  lives  (cc.  15 — 1 7).  The  beautiful  and  highly  emotional  descrip- 
tion of  the  Christian  life  closes1  with  a  reference  to  their  «writings». 
The  work  of  Aristides  offers  only  rare  echoes  of  the  biblical 
writings,  to  which  may  be  added  some  more  or  less  clear  traces  of 
the  Didache  (§  6)  and  of  the  Preaching  of  Peter  (§  30,  1).  Specific 
Christian  teachings  are  touched  on  very  slightly,  e.  g.  the  Incarnation 
of  the  Son  of  God  through  a  Hebrew  Virgin  (c.  2,  6)  and  the  Second 
Coming  of  Christ  in  Judgment  (c.  17,  8).  There  are  extant  in  Ar- 
menian two  other  fragments  that  bear  the  name  of  Aristides :  a  homily 
«on  the  appeal  of  the  (Good)  Thief  and  the  reply  of  the  Crucified 
One»  (Luke  xxiii.  42  f.),  and  some  lines  of  «a  Letter  to  all  philosophers 
by  the  philosopher  Aristides».  In  spite  of  the  favourable  opinion 
of  Zahn  and  Seeberg,  the  homily  is  not  to  be  accounted  authentic, 
while  the  pretended  epistolary  fragment  seems  no  more  than  an 
enlarged  citation  from  the  Apology. 

The  Armenian  fragment  of  the  Apology  and  the  Armenian  homily 
were  published  by  the  Mechitarists  under  the  title:  S.  Aristidis  philosophi 
Atheniensis  sermones  duo,  Venice,  1878.  Both  pieces  were  translated  into 
German  by  Fr.  Sasse,  in  Zeitschrift  für  kath.  Theol.  (1879),  iii.  612 — 618 
(cf.  p.  816),  and  by  Fr.  v.Himpel,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1880),  lxii.  109 — 127. 
A  new  edition  of  these  Armenian  texts,  including  the  fragment  of  the  Letter, 
was  brought  out  by  P.  Marti?i  in  Pitra,  Analecta  sacra,  torn,  iv.,  Paris,  1883, 
Armenian  text  pp.  6 — n,  Latin  translation  pp.  282 — 286;  cf.  Proleg. 
pp.  x — xi.  J.  Rendel  Harris  and  J.  Armitage  Robinson  published  the  Syriac 
version  of  the  Apology  from  a  codex  of  the  sixth  or  seventh  century,  found 
in  the  monastery  of  St.  Catharine  on  Mount  Sinai,  also  the  Greek  re- 
cension, in  Texts  and  Studies  edited  by  J.  A.  Robinson,  i.  1,  Cambridge 
1 89 1,  1893.  From  another  manuscript  Harris  translated  into  English  (ib. 
pp.  29 — 33)  the  Armenian  fragment  of  the  Apology.  See  D.  M.  Kay, 
The  Apology  of  Aristides  the  Philosopher,  translated  from  the  Greek  and  from 

1  c  16,  3,  5;  cf.  15,   1;   17,  1. 


48  FIRST    PERIOD.       SECOND    SECTION. 

the  Syriac  Version  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (Am.  ed  1885),  ix.  263 — 279. 
German  translations  of  the  Syriac  version  were  made  by  R.  Raabe,  in  Texte 
und  Untersuchungen  (Leipzig,  1892),  ix.  1,  and  by  J.  Schönfelder,  in  Theol. 
Quartalschr.  (1892),  lxxiv.  531 — 557.  Attempts  to  reconstruct  the  Greek 
original  of  the  Apology  have  been  made  by  R.  Seeberg,  in  Zahn's  Forschungen 
zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  (Erlangen,  1893),  v.  159 — 414  (con- 
tains comprehensive  and  thorough  researches),  and  by  Hennecke,  in  Texte 
und  Untersuchungen  (Leipzig,  1893),  iv.  3.  Ct.  Hennecke,  Zur  Frage  nach  der 
ursprünglichen  Textgestalt  der  Aristides- Apologie,  in  Zeitschrift  für  wissen- 
schaftl.  Theol.  (1893),  ii.  42 — 126.  Seeberg  published,  Erlangen  1894,  a 
complete  edition  of  the  writings  of  Aristides.  L.  Lemme ,  Die  Apologie 
des  Aristides,  in  Neue  Jahrbücher  für  deutsche  Theol.  (1893),  ii.  303 — 340. 
F.  Laudiert,  Über  die  Apologie  des  Aristides,  in  Internat.  Theol.  Zeitschrift 
(1894),  ii.  278; — 299.  P.  Vetter,  Aristides-Citate  in  der  armenischen  Literatur, 
in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1894),  Ixxvi.  529—539.  In  his  Forschungen  zur 
Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  (Erlangen,  1893),  v.  415 — 437,  Zahn 
defends  the  authenticity  of  the  homily  and  the  fragment  of  the  Letter. 
P.  Pape,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  (Leipzig,  1894),  xii.  2,  holds  both 
to  be  spurious. 

§   16.     Aristo  of  Pella. 

The  earliest  Christian  participant  in  the  literary  conflict  with 
Judaism  seems  to  have  been  Aristo  of  Pella  (a  town  of  the  Decapolis 
in  Palestine).  Between  135  and  175  he  published  a  small  treatise 
entitled  «A  Disputation  between  Jason  and  Papiscus  concerning  Christ» 
(Mgovoq  xat  Ilamoxou  ävrtXoyia  iztp\  Xptazou)  1.  In  this  work  Jason,  a 
Jewish  Christian,  proved  so  conclusively  the  fulfilment  of  the  Messianic 
prophecies  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth  that  his  opponent,  the  Jew  Papiscus, 
begged  to  be  baptized.  There  are  traces  in  Origen  (1.  c.)  of  the  con- 
tents of  the  work  (now  lost  to  us),  also  in  the  extant  introduction  or 
Epistola  nuncupatoria  of  an  ancient  Latin  translation  that  has  also 
perished2.  The  time  of  its  composition  may  be  approximately 
fixed :  Celsus  cites  it  {Origen  1.  c.)  in  his  work  against  the  Christians, 
written  about  178.  On  the  other  hand,  in  a  work  whose  title  and 
contents  are  unknown  to  us,  but  which  was  very  probably  our  Dia- 
logue, Aristo  of  Pella  makes  mention  of  the  issue  of  the  Barkochba 
rebellion  (132 — 1 35) 3.  The  first  to  claim  this  work  for  Aristo  of 
Pella  was  Maximus  Confessor4. 

The  «testimonia  antiquorum»  and  the  fragments  are  found  in  Routh, 
Reliquiae  sacrae,  i.  91 — 109;  de  Otto,  Corpus  apolog.  christ. ,  ix.  349 
ad  363.  Cf.  Har?iack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  i.  92 — 95  ;  ii.  1,  268  f. 
P.  Corssen  and  Th.  Zahn  treat  of  the  Dialogue  of  Aristo  in  their  re- 
searches on  the  sources  of  the  « Altercatio  Simonis  Judaei  et  Theophili  Chri- 
stiani»  ,  by  Evagrius,  in  which  text  Harnack  saw  (1883)  a  translation  or 
revision  of  the  Dialogue  of  Aristo;  cf.  §  96,   1.     In  two  Greek  dialogues  of 

1  Orig.,  Contra  Celsum,   iv.   52. 

2  Ad  Vigilium  episcopum  de  iudaica  incredulitate,  in  Opp.  S.  Cypr.  (ed.  Hartel), 
iii.    119 — 132. 

3  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,   iv.   6,   3. 

4  Scholia  in  Dion.  Areop.,  De  myst.  theol.,  c.    I. 


§    17.    JUSTIN    MARTYR.  49 

the  fourth  or  fifth  century,  first  edited  by  him,  Conybeare  believes  that 
he  can  recognize  a  recension  of  the  work  of  Aristo:  Fr.  C.  Conybeare, 
The  Dialogues  of  Athanasius  and  Zachaeus  and  of  Timothy  and  Aquila, 
Oxford,  1898  (Anecd.  Oxon.,  classical  series,  viii).  For  the  text  of  the  latter 
dialogue  cf.  £>.  Tamilia ,  De  Timothei  Christiani  et  Aquilae  Iudaei  dia- 
logo,  Rome,  1901. 

§   17.    Justin  Martyr. 

1.  HIS  LIFE.  —  The  habitual  title  of  «philosophus  et  martyr»  was 
first  applied  to  Justin  by  Tertullian1.  He  calls  himself  «the  son  of 
Priscus,  the  son  of  Bacchius,  of  Flavia  Neapolis»  ,  i.  e.  the  ancient 
Sichern  (modern  Nablus)  in  Palestine2.  He  may  have  been  born  in 
the  first  decade  of  the  second  century;  his  parents  were  heathens3. 
He  relates  of  himself  that  in  his  youth  he  was  devoured  by  the 
thirst  of  knowledge  and  went  from  one  philosophical  school  to 
another,  visiting  in  turn  the  Stoics,  the  Peripatetics,  the  Pythagoreans, 
and  the  Platonists.  After  a  lengthy  stay  with  the  latter  he  eventually 
found  in  Christianity  the  object  of  his  desires4.  His  conversion  took 
place  before  the  last  Jewish  War  (132 — 135),  perhaps  at  Ephesus5. 
As  a  Christian  he  clung  to  his  peripatetic  life,  continued  to  wear 
the  philosopher's  mantle 6,  and  defended  Christianity,  by  his  speech 
and  his  writings,  as  «the  only  reliable  and  serviceable  philosophy7». 
He-  spent  considerable  time  at  Rome,  founded  a  school  there,  and 
convicted  of  ignorance  the  philosopher  Crescens8/  In  the  same 
city  most  probably  he  sealed  his  faith  with  his  blood.  According 
to  the  Acts  of  St.  Justin  his  death  took  place  under  Junius  Rusticus, 
Prefect  of  the  City,  between   163  and   167. 

C.  Semisch,  Justin  der  Märtyrer.  Eine  kirchen-  und  dogmengeschicht- 
liche Monographie,  Breslau,  1840— 1842,  2  voll.  jf.  C.  Th.  Otto,  in  Encyclo- 
pedia of  Er  seh  and  Gruber,  Sect,  ii.,  part  30,  Leipzig.  1853, "pp.  39 — 76. 
Ch.  E.  Freppel,  St.  Justin,  Paris,  i860,  3.  ed.  1886.  Th.  Zahn,  in  Zeitschr. 
für  Kirchengesch.  (1885 — 1886),  viii.  37 — 66.  For  the  Acta  SS.  Justini  et 
sociorum  cf.  §  59,  4.  C.  Bertani ,  Vita  di  S.  Giustino,  Monza,  1902. 
A.  L.  Feder  S.  J.,  Justins  des  Märtyrers  Lehre  von  Jesus  Christus,  dem 
Messias  und  dem  menschgewordenen  Sohne  Gottes.  Eine  dogmen- 
geschichtliche Monographie,  Freiburg,   1906. 

2.  HIS  WRITINGS.  —  Justin  is  the  most  eminent  of  the  apologetic 
writers  of  the  second  century.  Indeed,  he  is  the  first  of  the  Fathers 
to  develop  a  comprehensive  literary  activity.  He  opposed  with  zeal 
not  only  heathenism,  but  also  Judaism  and  heresy.  The  manuscript- 
tradition  of  the  writings  he  has  bequeathed  us  exhibits  many  defects 
and  gaps.     Most  of  his  writings  are   lost,    while  many  writings  that 

1  Adv.  Valent.,  c.  5.  2  Apol.,  i.    1. 

3  Dial,  cum  Tryphone,  c.   28.  4  Ib.,   c.   2—8;   cf.  Apol.,  ii.   12. 

5  Dial,  cum  Tryph.,   c.    1   9  ;   cf.  Ens..  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.    18,  6. 

6  Ib.,  iv.    11,   8;   cf.  Just.,  Dial.   c.    1.  7  Dial.  c.  8. 

8  Acta  S.  Justini,   c.   3;  Ens.,  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.   11,   11;   Apol.,  ii.   3. 
Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  4 


50  FIRST    PERIOD.       SECOND    SECTION. 

falsely  bear  his  famous  name  have  been  preserved.  Only  three  of 
the  works  current  under  his  name  have  withstood  the  touchstone  of 
criticism :  the  two  Apologies,  and  the  Dialogue  with  the  Jew  Trypho. 

The  Arethas-Codex  (§  13)  contains  only  the  spurious  Epistola  ad  Zenam 
et  Serenum  (see  below  p.  54)  and  the  equally  spurious  Cohortatio  ad  Gen- 
tiles (p.  53).  Two  other  independent  collections  of  the  writings  of  Justin 
have  reached  us:  the  former  Codex  Argentorat.  9  (saec.  xiii.  or  xiv.) 
destroyed  in  the  siege  of  Strasburg  (1870),  and  the  (more  copious  but 
very  much  damaged)  Codex  Par.  450  (of  the  year  1364).  All  other 
copies  of  works  of  Justin,  in  so  far  as  they  have  been  studied ,  are  re- 
ducible to  these  three  manuscripts;  cf.  Harnack ,  Die  Überlieferung  der 
griechischen  Apologeten  des  2.  Jahrh.  (§  13),  pp.  73  ff.  The  first  editor 
of  the  works  of  Justin,  R.  Stephanus  (Paris,  155 1),  followed  closely  the  text 
of  Cod.  Par.  450.  The  second  editor,  Fr.  Sylburg  (Heidelberg,  1593), 
changed  the  order  of  the  writings,  and  added  to  them  the  Oratio  ad 
Gentiles  (p.  51)  and  the  Letter  to  Diognetus  (p.  52)  both  having  been 
in  the  meantime  made  known  to  the  learned  world  by  H.  Stephatius  (Paris, 
1592)  from  Cod.  Argent.  9.  The  reader  will  find,  in  §  13,  mention  of  the 
editions  of  Morellus,  Mar  anus  (Gallandi,  Migne),  and  de  Otto.  The  latter 
edition  appeared  at  Jena,  1842  — 1843,  m  three  octavo  volumes,  and  later,  as 
part  of  the  Corpus  apologetarum,  voll,  i — v.   1847  — 1850,  and  1876 — 1881. 

3.  THE  TWO  APOLOGIES.  —  In  the  Paris  Codex  (Gr.  450)  of  the 
year  1364,  on  which  is  based  the  text  of  the  two  Apologies,  the 
shorter,  now  known  as  the  second,  holds  the  first  place.  However, 
its  repeated  references  to  a  prior  Apology  (ii.  468)  show  that  it 
is  really  the  second.  —  Concerning  the  composition  of  the  first  Apo- 
logy there  has  been  no  little  discussion.  Wehofer  maintains  that  it 
is  an  oration  disposed  according  to  all  the  rules  of  contemporary 
rhetoric,  notwithstanding  an  occasional  wandering  from  the  theme.  Thus, 
there  is  a  prooemium  followed  by  a  propositio,  viz.,  that  the  name 
«Christian»  cannot  be  condemned,  since  no  evil  can  be  proved  against 
the  Christians  as  such.  In  the  first  part  of  the  dialogue  (cc.  4 — 13), 
the  refutatio,  the  author  combats  the  accusations  of  impiety  and  civil 
enmity.  In  the  second  part  (cc.  14 — 67),  the  probatio  proper,  he  main- 
tains that  Christ,  the  founder  of  the  Christian  doctrine,  is  the  Son  of 
God;  his  principal  arguments  are  drawn  from  the  Jewish  prophecies.  In 
the  per  oratio  he  appeals  to  the  imperial  sense  of  justice  and  invokes  as 
an  example  the  edict  of  Hadrian  to  Minucius  Fundanus  concerning  the 
treatment  of  the  Christians  (c.  68).  Rauschen  denies  any  intentionally 
artistic  construction,  but  admits  a  division  into  two  parts.  The  first 
(cc.  4 — 12)  is  chiefly  negative,  and  aims  at  rebutting  anti- Christian 
calumnies;  the  second  (cc.  13—67)  is  more  positive,  and  consists 
of  an  exposition  and  justification  of  the  contents  of  the  Christian 
religion.  We  learn  from  the  uncertain  and  obscure  inscription  of 
the  first  Apology  that  it  was  dedicated  to  Antoninus  Pius  (138 — 161), 
his  adoptive  sons  Marcus  Aurelius  and  Lucius  Verus,  the  Sacred 
Senate,  and  the  entire  Roman  people.    It  describes  as  a  philosopher 


§    17-      JUSTIN    MARTYR.  5  I 

and  a  «friend  of  knowledge»,  not  only  Marcus  Aurelius,  but  also 
Lucius  Verus,  born  in  130.  It  would  seem  from  several  indications 
that  this  work  was  composed  between  150  and  155.  Thus  Marcion 
is  described  (cc.  26  58)  as  an  apostle  of  the  demon;  Felix  is 
mentioned  as  prefect  of  Egypt  (c.  29),  and  it  is  stated  (c.  46)  that 
Christ  was  born  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago. 

The  second  or  shorter  Apology  owed  its  origin  to  a  very  recent 
event  (/ft eg  dk  xai  npayqv  c.  1).  Three  Christians  had  been  put  to 
death  by  Urbicus,  the  Prefect  of  Rome,  merely  for  their  profession  of 
the  new  religion.  The  fact  is  related  by  Justin,  who  adds  to  his  story 
certain  paragraphs  of  an  apologetic  character,  and  concludes  by  asking 
the  Emperors  (c.  15;  cf.  c.  2)  to  publish  the  writer's  previous  Apo- 
logy and  to  command  the  observance  of  justice  in  dealing  with  the 
Christians.  It  has  been  found  impossible  to  discover  any  dominant 
idea  or  rhetorical  order  in  this  document,  which  is  certainly  no  more 
than  a  supplement  or  appendix  of  the  first  Apology,  written  also  very 
shortly  after  the  composition  of  that  work  (cf.  the  references  468). 
Urbicus  was  City-Prefect  between  144  and  160;  we  must  be  content 
for  the  present  with  this  approximate  knowledge,  it  is  impossible  to 
ascertain  the  exact  date. 

The  two  apologies  were  edited  separately  by  J.  W.  J.  Braun,  Bonn, 
1830,  i860,  3.  ed.  by  E.  Gutberlet,  Leipzig,  1883;  by  G.  Krüger,  Freiburg, 
1 89 1  (Sammlung  ausgewählter  kirchen-  und  dogmengeschichtlicher  Quellen- 
schriften, i.),  2.  ed.  1896.  German  translations  of  both  have  been  made  by 
P.  A.  Richard,  Kempten,  1871  (Bibl.  der  Kirchenväter),  and  If.  Veil,  Stras- 
burg, 1894  (with  explanatory  notes).  For  an  English  translation  see  Dods, 
Reith  and  Roberts,  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (Am.  ed.  1885),  i.  163 — 302. 
For  the  date  of  composition  and  the  relations  between  the  two  apologies 
cf.  G.  Krüger,  in  Jahrb.  für  protest.  Theol.  (1890),  xvi.  579 — 593;  y.  A. 
Cramer,  in  Theol.  Studien  (1891),  lxiv.  317—357,  401 — 436;  B.  Grundl, 
De  interpolationibus  ex  S.  Justini  phil.  et  mart.  Apologia  secunda  expungen- 
dis  (Progr.),  Augustae  Vindel. ,  1891.  The  hypercriticism  of  Grundl  is 
refuted  by  F.  Emmerich,  De  Justini  phil.  et  mart.  Apologia  altera  (Diss, 
inaug.),  Münster,  1896.  Th.  M.  Wehofer,  Die  Apologie  Justins  des  Phil, 
u.  Märt.,  in  literarhistorischer  Beziehung  zum  erstenmal  untersucht,  Rome, 
1897  (Römische  Quartalschrift,  Supplement  6).  G.  Rauschen,  Die  formale 
Seite  der  Apologien  Justins,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1899),  Ixxxi.  188 — 206. 
A.  Lebentopulos ,  CH  d  xai  ß'  'ArcoXofia  uuep  ^picraavaiv  'IptxrrCvou  <piXoaocpou 
xäl  fiapTupoc  xal  6  xata  cLXXijva>v  hr(oz  'Afravasioo  toü  fxsyaXou  (Dissert.), 
Erlangen,   1901. 

4.  THE  DIALOGUE  WITH  THE  JEW  TRYPHO.  This  work  too,  has 
come  down  to  us  only  in  the  Paris  Codex  of  1364,  and  is  moreover 
in  an  imperfect  state.  It  wants  the  introduction,  and  the  dedication 
to  a  certain  Marcus  Pompeius  (c.  141).  Also  from  chapter  74 
a  considerable  fragment  has  dropped  out.  The  work  sums  up  a 
disputation  held  at  Ephesus *  (a  fact  very  probably  learned  by  Eusebius 

1  Eus.,  Hist,   eccl.,   iv.    18,  6. 

4* 


52  FIRST    PERIOD.       SECOND    SECTION. 

from  the  lost  introduction)  during  the  then  recent  Jewish  War  (132 
to  135:  Dial.  i.  9).  The  interlocutors  were  Justin  and  the  JewTrypho; 
the  dialogue  lasted  for  two  days,  and  it  is  supposed  that,  correspondingly, 
the  original  work  consisted  of  two  books.  With  an  artistic  skill,  that  Zahn 
has  finely  brought  out,  the  work  includes  both  truth  and  fiction ;  it  is 
in  part  made  up  of  real  discussions  between  Justin  and  learned  Jews, 
and  is  in  part  a  free  and  original  study.  It  is  quite  probable  that 
the  Trypho  who  represents  Judaism  is  none  other  than  the  celebrated 
contemporary  Rabbi  Tarpho.  In  the  introduction  (cc.  2 — 8)  Justin 
describes  the  genesis  of  his  own  philosophico-religious  opinions;  in 
the  first  part  (cc.  10 — 47)  he  proves  from  the  Old  Testament  that 
the  ritual  Law  of  Moses  has  been  abrogated  in  favour  of  the  new 
Law  of  Christ;  in  the  second  part  (cc.  48 — 108)  he  makes  it  clear 
from  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament  that  the  adoration  of 
Jesus  does  not  conflict  with  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  Monotheism, 
the  adoration  of  the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob ;  in  the  third 
part  (cc.  109 — 141),  he  seeks  to  prove  that  the  true  Israel  is  to  be 
found  in  all  those  who  have  accepted  Christianity,  since  the  days  of 
the  Apostles  at  Jerusalem ;  to  them  belong  the  promises  of  the  Old 
Covenant.  In  the  Dialogue  reference  is  made  to  the  first  Apology 
(c.  120);  it  must,  therefore,  have  been  composed  after  150 — 155. 
Th.  Zahn,  in  Zeitschr.  für  Kirchengesch.,  viii.  37 — 66. 

5.  LOST  WORKS  OF  JUSTIN.  In  the  Sacra  Parallela  of  St.  John 
Damascene  are  preserved  three  lengthy  fragments  of  a  work  of  Justin 
on  the  Resurrection  (itepi  avaozaoewq) ,  in  which  are  refuted  Gnostic 
objections  against  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  the  proofs  and 
guaranties  of  this  ecclesiastical  doctrine  set  forth.  There  are  also 
other  fragments  bearing  the  name  of  Justin,  but  they  are  too  brief  and 
disconnected  to  permit  a  judgment  as  to  their  authenticity  and  right 
to  a  place  among  the  writings  of  Justin.  He  refers  himself  (Apol.  i.  26) 
to  a  previous  work  against  heretics  (aovraypa  xava  izaotov  tlov  yeye- 
vypevcov  alpeaecov)  ;  as  to  its  content  we  are  reduced  to  conjectures 
based  on  other  statements  of  Justin  concerning  heretics.  St.  Irenaeus 
knew  and  used  *  a  work  of  Justin  against  Marcion  (aovrayfia  Ttpbg  Map- 
xicovaj ;  according  to  some  it  was  a  fragment  of  the  above-cited  work, 
according  to  others  a  special  treatise.  Eusebius  2  is  the  earliest  witness 
to  the  authorship  of  the  following  writings:  a  Discourse  against  the 
Greeks  (Aoyog  irpoQ  "EXXrjVac,)  «in  which  he  discusses  at  length  most  of 
the  matters  that  are  treated  by  us  and  by  the  Greek  philosophers,  and 
examines  carefully  the  nature  of  the  demons»;  another  work  addressed 
to  the  Greeks  under  the  title  «Refutation»  (irepov  n:poQaEMr}vaQ  auy- 
ypapaa,  ?)  xa\  eiiiypa^zv  zleyyov)\  a  work  on  the  unity  of  God  fmp} 
flsoo  povapyiaq)    «based  not  only  on    our  own  writings   but  also  on 

1  Adv.  haer.,  iv.  6,   2.  2  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.    18,   3  ff. 


§    17-      JUSTIN   MARTYR.  53 

those  of  the  Greeks»;  a  work  entitled  «Psalter»  (ipdXrqQ) ;  a  doctrinal 
treatise  on  the  soul  (a^oXixov  7tep\  </>l>/yjqJ,  «in  which  he  describes 
various  researches  concerning  the  problem  of  the  soul  and  gives  the 
views  of  the  Greek  philosophers,  with  his  promise  to  refute  them  in 
another  work  wherein  his  own  views  shall  be  set  forth».  The  titles 
of  the  first  three  of  these  writings  are  identical  with  those  of  three 
works  preserved  in  the  manuscripts  of  the  writings  of  St.  Justin : 
Oratio  ad  Gentiles  (npoQ  "EXkyjvaQ),  Cohortatio  ad  Gentiles  (Xoyoq 
7rapatvsTixbg  irpoc,  "EXXtjvolq),  and  De  monarchia  (nep\  $sou  povapylaq) . 
The  five  short  chapters  of  the  Oratio  ad  Gentiles,  devoted  to  a  very 
energetic  and  efficient  refutation  of  the  unreasonable  and  immoral 
mythology  of  Homer  and  Hesiod,  cannot  be  attributed  to  Justin; 
the  style  of  the  wrork  differs  from  his  too  widely.  Yet  the  little 
treatise  may  possibly  belong  to  the  second  century.  At  a  later  date 
a  certain  Ambrosius  revised  it;  this  revision  has  reached  us  in  a  Syriac 
translation.  The  Cohortatio  ad  Gentiles,  a  work  in  38  chapters,  under- 
takes to  demonstrate,  in  an  elegant,  smooth  and  flowery  style, 
that  whatever  truth  is  found  in  the  writings  of  the  Greek  sages, 
poets  and  philosophers,  was  taken  by  them  from  the  sacred  books 
of  the  Jews.  Both  in  form  and  content  this  work  offers  a  striking 
contrast  to  the  genuine  writings  of  Justin.  Very  probably,  however, 
it  was  composed  at  the  end  of  the  second  or  the  beginning  of  the  third 
century,  though  at  present  opinions  differ  very  widely  as  to  its  origin. 
The  author  of  the  six  chapters  De  monarchia  undertakes  to  prove 
the  unity  of  God  and  the  inanity  of  the  gods,  mostly  by  forged 
citations  from  the  Greek  poets,  and  with  no  reference  to  the  Scrip- 
tures. As  the  work  is  apparently  complete  in  itself,  it  can  hardly  be  the 
second  part  of  the  homonymous  work  of  Justin  referred  to  by  Eusebius. 
Moreover,  its  diction  differs  notably  from  that  of  Justin.  Possibly 
these  three  works  were  erroneously  attributed  to  Justin  by  reason  of 
above-mentioned  statements  of  Eusebius.  Possibly,  too,  Eusebius  had 
before  him  works  that  wrongly  bore  the  name  of  Justin.  He  says, 
expressly,  that  apart  from  the  works  mentioned  by  him  «very  many 
other  works»  circulated  under  the  name  of  Justin.  K  St.  John  Da- 
mascene, Maximus  Confessor,  and  Photius  quote,  indeed,  still  other 
works  of  Justin,  but  the  sources  of  Christian  literary  tradition  were  by. 
that  time  very  deeply  troubled  2. 

Fragments  that  seem  to  have  some  claim  to  authenticity  are  collected 
in  de  Otto,  Corpus  apolog.,  iii.  210 — 265.  On  the  fragments  of  De  resur- 
rectione  re-edited  by  K.  Holl ,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  (1899),  xx. 
36 — 49,  new  series,  v.  2,  see  Zahn,  in  Zeitschr.  für  Kirchengesch. ,  viii. 
20 — 37  ;  W.  Bousset ,  Die  Evangeliencitate  Justins  des  Mart. ,  Göttingen, 
1 89 1,  pp.   123 — 127.    A  later  revision  of  the  Oratio  ad  Gentiles  was  edited, 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.   18,   8. 

2  Sacra  Parallela;  Migne,  PG.,  xci.  280;  Bibl.  Cod.    125. 


54  FIRST    PERIOD.       SECOND    SECTION. 

in  Syriac  and  English,  from  a  seventh-century  manuscript  by  W.  Cureton, 
Spicilegium  Syriacum,  London,  1855,  pp.  38 — 42,  61 — 69.  In  Sitzungs- 
berichte der  kgl.  preuß.  Akad.  der  Wissensch.,  Berlin,  1896,  pp.  627—646, 
Harnack  made  known  a  German  translation  of  the  Syriac  version,  by 
F.  Baethgen,  and  added  the  original  text  of  the  Oratio,  with  corrections. 
The  author  of  the  Cohortatio  ad  Gentiles ,  according  to  E.  Schürer 
(Zeitschr.  für  Kirchengesch.  [1877 — 1878],  ii.  319 — 331)  borrowed  from  the 
«Chronography»  of  Julius  Africanus;  he,  therefore,  belongs  to  the  second 
quarter  of  the  third  century.  D.  Völler  on  the  contrary,  in  Zeitschr.  für 
wissensch.  Theol.  (1883),  xxvi.  180 — 215,  is  of  opinion  that  it  was  written 
about  180,  and  presumably  by  Apollinaris  of  Hierapolis.  J.  Dräseke,  in 
Zeitschr.  für  Kirchengeschichte  (1884 — 1885),  vii.  257 — 302,  and  Texte  und 
Untersuchungen  (1892),  vii.  3 — 4,  83 — 99,  thinks  that  its  author  was  Apolli- 
naris of  Laodicea  (f  ca.  390),  and  that  its  original  title  was  uTisp  dXrjiteias  \ 
Ao-p?  rcapaivETixöc  -pos  7EXXirjvac.  This  line  of  thought  was  adopted  by  J.  R. 
Asmus ,  in  Zeitschr.  für  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1895),  xxxviii.  115 — 155; 
(1897),  xl.  268 — 284,  and  Zeitschr.  für  Kirchengesch.  (1895 — 1896),  xvi. 
45 — 71,  220 — 252;  he  contends  that  in  the  Cohortatio  Apollinaris  of  Laodicea 
is  attacking  the  infamous  scholastic  ordinance  of  Julian  the  Apostate,  made 
in  362 ;  in  turn,  the  Emperor  was  aiming  at  the  Cohortatio  in  his  work 
against  the  Christians.  A.  Puech,  in  Melanges,  Henri  Weil,  Paris,  1898, 
395 — 406,  places  the  date  of  the  Cohortatio  between  260  and  300.  W.  Wid- 
mann,  Die  Echtheit  der  Mahnrede  Justins  des  Märtyrers  an  die  Heiden 
(Forschungen  zur  christl.  Literatur  und  Dogmengeschichte),  Mainz,  1902, 
iii.  1  (the  Cohortatio  is  a  genuine  work  of  Justin).  W.  Gaul,  Die  Ab- 
fassungsverhältnisse der  pseudo-justinischen  Cohortatio  ad  Graecos,  Berlin, 
1902.  For  false  accounts  of  the  discovery  of  the  work  of  Justin  on  the 
soul  (TTspl  ^UX%)>  mentioned  by  Eusebius,  cf.  H.  Diets,  in  Sitzungsberichte 
der  kgl.  preuß.  Akad.  der  Wissensch,,  Berlin,  1891,  pp.  151 — 153. 

6.  SPURIOUS  WRITINGS.  Apart  from  the  three  works  mentioned 
above  (p.  52),  several  other  works  have  reached  us  that  are  erroneously 
ascribed  to  Justin.  We  shall  speak  in  §  22  of  the  Letter  to  Diognetus. 
The  Expositio  fidei  seu  De  Trinitate  is  a  doctrinal  exposition  of 
the  Trinity  and  of  Christology  that  has  reached  us  in  two  recensions 
of  unequal  length.  Funk  has  shown,  against  Dräseke,  that  the  ori- 
ginal recension  is  the  longer  one,  and  that  it  belongs  to  the  fifth 
century,  not  to  the  time  of  Apollinaris  of  Laodicea.  There  exist  at 
present  some  fragments  of  a  revision  of  this  work  in  Syriac  and 
in  Old-Slavonic.  The  Epistola  ad  Zenam  et  Serenum  is  an  exhor- 
tation and  guide  to  Christian  asceticism;  according  to  a  conjecture 
of  Batiffol,  it  was  written  in  the  time  of  St.  John  Chrysostom  by 
Sisinnius,  the  Novatian  bishop  of  Constantinople.  The  Quaestiones 
el  responsiones  ad  orthodoxos,  a  collection  of  146  questions  and  answers 
of  a  miscellaneous  theological  nature,  are  a  work  of  the  fifth  century 
(cf.  Quaest.  71).  Of  the  same  date,  perhaps,  are  the  Quaestiones 
Christianorum  ad  Gentiles,  apologetical  studies  concerning  God  and 
His  relations  to  the  world,  and  the  Quaestiones  Gentilium  ad  Christi- 
anos,  equally  metaphysical  and  theological  in  contents,  and  supposed 
to  be  from  the  same  hand.  The  Confutatio  dogmatum  quorundam 
Aristotelicorum  is  directed  chiefly  against  some  principles  of  Aristo- 


§    17.      JUSTIN    MARTYR.  55 

telian  physics.    There  are  also  a  few  other  small  fragments  of  works 
wrongly  attributed  to  St.  Justin. 

J.  Dräseke  has  several  times  attempted  to  prove  that  the  short  recen- 
sion of  the  Expositio  fidei  is  a  work  of  Apollinaris  of  Laodicea,  in  Zeitschr. 
für  Kirchengesch.  (1883  — 1884),  vi.  1 — 45,  503—549;  also  Jahrb.  für 
protest.  Theol.  (1887),  xiii.  671  ff.  He  finally  edited  it  under  the  latter's 
name,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  vii.  3—4,  353 — 363,  cf.  158 — 182. 
The  thesis  is  utterly  untenable ;  as  Funk  has  shown,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr. 
(1896),  lxxviii,  116 — 147,  224 — 250.  These  articles  are  reprinted  in  Funk, 
Kirchengeschichtl.  Abhandlungen  und  Untersuchungen  (1899),  ii.  253 — 291. 
In  Pitra's  Analecta  sacra,  iv.,  Paris,  1883,  P.  Martin  made  known  fragments 
of  a  Syriac  revision  of  the  Expositio  fidei  (Syriac  text,  pp.  n — 16,  and 
Latin  translation,  pp.  287 — 292).  For  the  Old-Slavonic  recension  of  the  same, 
cf.  N.  Bonwetsch,  in  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Lit.,  i.  892  f.  For  the 
Epistola  ad  Ze?iam  et  Serenum  cf.  P.  Batiffol ,  in  Revue  Biblique  (1986), 
v.  114 — 122.  The  Quaestiones  et  responsa  ad  orthodoxos  were  edited  once 
more  by  A.  Papadopulos-Kerameus,  St.  Petersburg,  1895,  from  a  tenth-century 
codex,  in  which  they  are  attributed  to  Theodoret  of  Cyrus.  Cf.  on  them 
W.  Goß,  in  Zeitschr.  für  die  historische  Theologie  (1842),  xii.  4,  35 — 154. 
Dräseke,  in  Jahrb.  für  protest.  Theol.  (1884),  x.  347—352,  believes  that  there 
are  fragments  of  the  writings  of  Apollinaris  of  Laodicea  in  the  Fragmenta 
Pseudo-Justini  published  by  de  Otto,  Corpus  Apolog.,  v,  368 — 375.  A.  Harnack 
has  vindicated  for  Diodorus  of  Tarsus  the  authorship  of  the  «Quaestiones  et 
responsiones  ad  orthodoxos»  ;  cf.  his  Diodor  von  Tarsus,  Vier  pseudojusti- 
nische  Schriften  als  Eigentum  Diodors  nachgewiesen  (Texte  und  Unter- 
suchungen, new  series,  vi.  v),  Leipzig,  1901.  This  work  contains  a  German 
version  of  the  first  three  writings  and  of  the  more  important  portions  of  the 
fourth :  Quaestiones  et  responsiones  ad  ort/iodoxos,  Quaestiones  Gentilium  ad 
Christianos,  Quaestiones  Christianorum  ad  Gentites,  and  Confutatio  dogmatum 
Aristotelis.  If  Harnack's  arguments  do  not  furnish  a  splendid  and  ir- 
refutable demonstration,  as  F.  Diekamp  thinks,  in  Theologische  Revue  (1902), 
i.  53,  they  create  at  least  a  very  strong  probability  in  favour  of  Diodorus 
of  Tarsus.  Funk,  Le  pseudo-Justin  et  Diodore  de  Tarse,  in  Revue  d'his- 
toire  ecclesiastique  (1902),  iii.  947 — 971,  thinks  that  the  «Quaestiones  et 
responsa»  attributed  by  Harnack  to  Diodorus  are  not  earlier  than  the 
middle  of  the  fifth  century.  The  statement  which  ascribes  them  to  Theo- 
doret of  Cyrus  needs  closer  investigation. 

7.  THE  AUTHENTIC  WRITINGS  OF  JUSTIN.  The  notable  dis- 
agreement concerning  the  contents  and  structure  of  his  writings  is  owing, 
in  part  at  least,  to  a  peculiar  defect  in  the  same:  there  is  wanting  in 
them  an  orderly  movement  of  thought.  Justin  is  an  impressionist. 
He  rarely  tarries  long  enough  to  exhaust  an  idea,  preferring  to  take 
up  other  threads  before  returning  to  his  original  theme.  Thus,  cor- 
related subjects  are  scattered,  and  ideas  which  have  little  mutual 
affinity  are  brought  together.  Moreover,  he  pays  slight  attention  to 
beauty  of  diction.  His  writings  abound  in  solecisms  and  neologisms  ; 
he  delights  in  long  periods  and  frequent  participial  construction;  at 
times  he  falls  into  a  rigid  monotony  that  is  positively  fatiguing. 
At  times,  however,  especially  in  dialogue,  his  diction  takes  on  more 
life,  exhibits  a  certain  power  and  emotion,  and  even  rises  to  a  certain 


56  FIRST    PERIOD.       SECOND    SECTION. 

sublimity.  As  already  indicated  (p.  49),  Justin  continued  to  follow, 
after  his  conversion,  the  profession  of  philosopher.  He  is  the  first,  and 
among  the  most  eminent,  of  those  Fathers  who  undertook  to  bring  about 
a  reconciliation  between  Christianity  and  pagan  science.  At  the  same 
time,  it  is  only  by  a  partisan  distortion  of  his  teaching  that  some  modern 
writers,  like  Aube  and  von  Engelhardt,  find  in  it  a  strange  mixture 
of  Christian  and  pagan-philosophical  elements,  to  which  Platonism 
rather  than  Christianity,  has  lent  both  form  and  colouring.  Justin  is 
a  Christian  philosopher,  thoroughly  conscious  that  with  his  faith  in  the 
Son  of  God  he  has  entered  a  new  sphere  of  truth,  has  come  to 
possess  the  fulness  of  truth.  For  him  Christianity  is  the  rule  by 
which  he  measures  the  data  of  philosophy;  it  is,  in  all  simplicity, 
the  truth  itself;  hence  in  turn  all  truth  is  Christian  (Apol.  ii.  13). 
The  same  Word  (Logos)  who  was  manifested  fully  in  Christ,  is 
germinally  (as  XoyoQ  oTteppaTtxoo)  in  every  human  soul.  In  the  measure 
of  their  participation  in  this  Word  of  God,  the  philosophers  and  poets 
of  antiquity  were  able  to  know  the  truth  (Apol.  ii.  8,  13).  All  those 
who  have  lived  with  the  Word  foe  juerä  Xoyoo  ßuoaavzsg)  were 
Christian,  even  though  they  were  held  to  be  atheists;  such  e.  g.  were 
Socrates,  Heraclitus,  and  their  peers  among  the  Greeks;  Abraham, 
Ananias,  Azarias,  Misael,  Elias,  and  many  others  among  the  Barbarians 
(Apol.  i.  46).  It  is  through  the  Old  Testament  that  other  germs  of 
truth  (anippara  dfyftsiaq)  were  made  known  to  the  Greeks.  Plato 
borrowed  from  Moses  the  doctrine  of  moral  freedom ;  similarly  it  was 
from  the  Hebrew  prophets  that  the  Greek  writers  obtained  such 
knowledge  as  they  had  concerning  the  immortality  of  the  soul, 
future  retribution,  heaven,  and  the  like  (Apol.  i.  44).  Thereby  the 
relation  of  pagan  culture  to  Christianity  was  at  least  distinctly  out- 
lined. The  faith  of  Christians,  according  to  Justin,  is  found  in  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament,  particularly  in  the  prophets :  their  words  are  for 
him  the  words  of  God,  or  the  Logos,  or  the  Holy  Spirit  (Apol.  i.  33 
36  61).  The  Gospels  he  cites  usually  as  «memoirs  of  the  Apostles» 
(ä7Tojj.v7](j.ove6fJLara  rwv  aitooTÖXcov) ;  thereby  he,  at  least,  suggests  that 
Christians  held  them  for  inspired  and  canonical  books  {ävapveoaxerat 
Apol.  i.  67 ;  yiypanrat  Dial.  c.  49).  The  Apocalypse  is  declared  to  be 
a  divinely  revealed  book  and  written  by  the  Apostle  John  (Dial.  c.  81). 
There  are  also  in  Justin  echoes  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  of  all 
the  Pauline  Epistles  (excepting  the  Epistle  to  Philemon) ,  of  the 
Epistle  of  St.  James,  the  two  Epistles  of  St.  Peter,  and  the  first 
Epistle  of  St.  John.  The  account  of  Christian  liturgical  customs 
furnished  by  Justin  (Apol.  i.  61  ff.)  is  of  very  great  importance;  he 
oversteps  in  these  paragraphs  the  limits  of  the  Discipline  of  the  Secret, 
and  describes  with  much  detail  both  baptism  and  the  celebration  of  the 
Eucharist.  No  other  Christian  apologist  imitated  him  in  this  disclosure 
of  the  greatest  of  Christian  mysteries. 


§    1 8.      TATIAN    THE    ASSYRIAN.  57 

B.  Aube,  Essai  de  critique  religieuse.  De  l'apologetique  chretienne  au 
IIe  siecle.  St.  Justin  phil.  et  mart.,  Paris,  1861,  1875.  C.  Weizsäcker,  Die 
Theologie  des  Märtyrers  Justinus,  in  Jahrb.  für  deutsche  Theol.  (1867),  xii. 
60 — 119.  M.  v.  Engelhardt,  Das  Christentum  Justins  des  Märtyrers.  Eine 
Untersuchung  über  die  Anfänge  der  katholischen  Glaubenslehre.  Erlangen, 
1878.  Cf.,  against  Engelhardt,  A.  Stählin,  Justin  der  Märtyrer  und  sein 
neuester  Beurteiler,  Leipzig,  1880.  J.  Sprinzl,  Die  Theologie  des  hl.  Ju- 
stinus des  Märtyrers.  Eine  dogmengeschichtl.  Studie,  in  Theol.-prakt.  Quartal- 
schrift (1884 — 1886).  C.  Clemen,  Die  religionsphilosophische  Bedeutung 
des  stoisch-christlichen  Eudämonismus  in  Justins  Apologie,  Studien  und 
Vorarbeiten,  Leipzig,  1890.  F.  Bosse ,  Der  präexistente  Christus  des  Ju- 
stinus Martyr,  eine  Episode  aus  der  Geschichte  des  christologischen  Dogmas 
(Dissert,  inaug.),  Greifswald,  1891.  W.  Flemming,  Zur  Beurteilung  des  Christen- 
tums Justins  des  Märtyrers,  Leipzig,  1893.  K.  L.  Grube,  Darlegung  der 
hermeneutischen  Grundsätze  Justins  des  Märtyrers  (reprinted  from  Katholik), 
Mainz,  1880.  Th.  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  (1889),  i.  2, 
463 — 585 :  «Justinus  Martyr  und  die  Apostolischen  Schriften».  W.  Bousset, 
Die  Evangeliencitate  Justins  des  Märtyrers  in  ihrem  Wert  für  die  Evangelien- 
kritik von  neuem  untersucht,  Göttingen,  1891.  A.  Baldus,  Das  Verhältnis 
Justins  des  Märtyrers  zu  unseren  synoptischen  Evangelien,  Münster,  1895. 
W.  Bornemann,  Das  Taufsymbol  Justins  des  Märtyrers,  in  Zeitschr.  für 
Kirchengesch.  (1878 — 1879),  iii.  1 — 27.  J.  Wilpert,  Fractio  panis,  Freiburg, 
1895,  PP-  42 — 65 :  «Die  eucharistische  Feier  zur  Zeit  des  hl.  Justinus 
Martyr».  The  extraordinary  assertion  ofHarnack,  in  Texte  und  Untersuch. 
(1891),  vii.  2,  115 — 144,  that  Justin  taught  bread  and  water  to  be  the 
«matter»  of  the  Blessed  Eucharist  has  met  with  no  acceptance.  Cf.  Th.  Zahn, 
Brot  und  Wein  im  Abendmahl  der  alten  Kirche,  Erlangen  and  Leipzig,  1892; 
Funk,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1892),  lxxiv.  643 — 659,  and  again  in  Kirchen- 
geschichtl.  Abhandl.  und  Untersuch.  (1897),  i.  278 — 292;  A.  Jillicher ,  in 
Theol.  Abhandl.  C.  V.Weizsäcker  gewidmet,  Freiburg,  1892,  pp.  215 — 250. 
E.  Lippelt ,  Quae  fuerint  Justini  martyris  diro{xvri|xov£U}j.aTa  quaque  ratione 
cum  forma  Evangeliorum  syro-latina  consenserint  (Diss.),  Halle,  1901.  J.  A. 
Cramer,  Die  Logosstellen  in  Justins  Apologie  kritisch  untersucht,  in  Zeit- 
schrift für  die  neutestamentl.  Wissensch.  (1901),  ii.  300 — 338.  Cramer 
maintains  that  the  passages  relative  to  the  Logos  are  not  from  the  pen 
of  Justin,  but  were  interpolated  through  the  combination  of  the  Apology 
with  a  Judaeo-Christian  work  of  Alexandrine  origin.  Id.,  De  Logosleer 
in  de  Pleitreden  von  Justins,  in  Theol.  Tijdsscrift  (1902),  xxxvi.  114  — 159. 
W.  Liese,  Justinus  Martyr  in  seiner  Stellung  zum  Glauben  und  zur  Philo- 
sophie, in  Zeitschr.  für  kath.  Theol.  (1902),  xxvi.  560—570. 


§  18.    Tatian  the  Assyrian. 

I.  HIS  LIFE.  —  Tatian,  «born  in  the  land  of  the  Assyrians»,  be- 
longs to  the  Syrian  race.  He  had  travelled  extensively,  and  had 
earned  the  reputation  of  a  philosopher  and  a  writer,  before  he  became 
a  Christian  at  Rome.  This  must  have  taken  place  previous  to  the  death 
of  Justin  (163 — 167).  Irenaeus  is  witness  that  Tatian  was  a  «hearer» 
of  Justin,  and  belonged  to  the  Christian  community  at  Rome  until 
the  latter's  death.  Later,  probably  in  172,  Tatian  abandoned  the 
Church,  joined  the  Gnostics,  more  particularly  the  Encratites,  and 
returned    to    the   East.      Antioch   (Syria),    Cilicia,    and    Pisidia   are 


58  FIRST    PERIOD.       SECOND    SECTION. 

mentioned   as   the  scenes  of  his   activity.     We  are  quite  ignorant  of 
the  time  and  place  of  his  death1. 

H.  A.  Daniel,  Tatianus  der  Apologet,  Halle,  1837.  Th.  Zahn,  Tatians 
Diatessaron,  in  Forschungen  zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  Er- 
langen, 1881,  i.  268  ff.  Ad.  Harnack,  Die  Überlieferung  der  griechischen 
Apologeten  (cf.  §  13),  pp.  196 — 232.  In  his  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Lite- 
ratur, ii.  1,  284  ff.,  Harnack  has  more  or  less  completely  withdrawn  his 
earlier  views  concerning  the  date  of  Tatian.  F.  X.  Funk,  Zur  Chronologie 
Tatians,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1883),  lxv.  219 — 233,  and  again  in  his 
Kirchengeschichtl.  Abhandlungen  und  Untersuchungen  (1899),  ii.  142 — 152. 

2.  THE  APOLOGY.  —  Only  one  work  of  Tatian  has  been  preserved, 
an  Apology  for  Christianity  or  rather  a  criticism  of  Hellenism,  entitled 
npbc,  "EXXyivaq  (Oratio  ad  Graecos).  It  begins  brusquely  with  a  re- 
futation of  the  prejudices  of  the  Greeks  (cc.  I — 4),  and  proceeds  to 
establish  two  lines  of  argument  in  favour  of  Christianity :  its  sublime 
doctrine  (cc.  4 — 31),  and  its  very  great  antiquity  (cc.  31 — 41).  In 
the  first  part  he  combines  with  his  exposition  of  Christian  teaching 
concerning  God  and  the  world,  sin  and  redemption,  a  satire  of  the 
opposite  errors  of  the  Greeks;  at  the  end  (cc.  22  —  29)  he  quite  gives  up 
the  role  of  an  apologist  to  enter  upon  that  of  a  polemical  writer. 
The  second  part  of  his  work  is  devoted  to  proving  that,  though 
Homer  marks  the  beginnings  of  Greek  civilization,  art,  and  science, 
Moses  antedates  him  by  four  hundred  years.  Therefore,  even  those 
«wise  men»  of  Greece  who  preceded  Homer  are  more  modern  than 
Moses.  As  a  disciple  of  Justin  his  apologetic  coincides  in  many  points 
with  that  of  his  master,  while  in  other  points  there  is  a  notable  dif- 
ference. Justin  treats  the  thinkers  and  poets  of  Greece  with  great 
respect ;  his  disciple  Tatian  goes  out  of  his  way  to  belittle  and  insult 
them.  He  abounds  in  bitter  and  excessive  denunciation,  and  ignores 
entirely  all  the  praiseworthy  features  of  Greek  culture.  In  his  Apology 
there  is  revealed,  even  more  clearly  than  in  his  own  career,  a  character 
harsh  and  passionate,  and  inclined  to  extreme  measures.  His  style, 
likewise,  is  generally  rough  and  disjointed,  though  occasionally,  owing 
to  the  strength  and  ardour  of  his  conviction,  it  assumes  a  poetic  lofti- 
ness. The  purpose  of  his  Apology  was  to  justify  his  conversion  to  Chris- 
tianity, shortly  after  which  event  it  was  published,  probably  outside 
Rome  (c.  35),  and  about  165,  when  Justin  had  already  passed  away 
(cc.  18.  19).  His  doctrinal  thought  is  markedly  influenced  by  Stoicism; 
it  also  abounds  in  phrases  and  turns  of  expression  capable  of  being 
interpreted  as  contrary  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Church.  Christ,  how- 
ever, is  emphatically  declared  to  be  God  (cc.  13  21).  In  a  very 
difficult  passage  however  (c.  5)  on  the  procession  of  the  Word,  he 
clearly  teaches  subordinationism. 

1  Tat.,  Orat.,  cc.  I  42  29  35;  Cle??i.  Al. ,  Strom.,  iii.  12,  81;  Efiiph.,  Haer., 
xlvi.   1  ;  Iren.,  Adv.  haer.,  i.  28,    I  ;  Ems.,  Chron.   ad  a.  Abraham  2188. 


§    1 8.       TATIAN   THE    ASSYRIAN.  59 

We  owe  the  preservation  of  the  Apology  to  the  Arethas-Codex  (§  13). 
Unfortunately  the  quaternions  of  this  codex  which  contained  it  were  torn 
out  between  the  twelfth  and  the  fourteenth  century ;  in  their  place  we  only 
have  three  copies  of  the  codex  made  in  the  eleventh  and  twelfth  centuries. 
The  editio  princeps  is  that  of  jf.  Frisius  (C.  Gessner),  Zürich,  1546.  On  the 
editions  oiMorellus,  Maranus  (Gallandi,  Migne),  de  Otto  (Corpus  apolog.  vi.), 
cf.  §  13.  The  most  recent  edition  is  that  of  Ed.  Schwartz  (Texte  und  Unter- 
suchungen, iv.  1),  Leipzig,  1888.  Recent  German  versions  are  those  of 
V.  Gröne,  Kempten,  1872  (Bibl.  der  Kirchenväter),  and  of  Harnack  in  a 
Programme  of  the  University  of  Gießen  (Aug.  25.,  1884).  There  is  an  English 
translation  of  the  Oratio  by  J.  E.  Fyland  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (Am. 
ed.  1885),  ii.  65 — 83.  G.  Demboivski,  Die  Quellen  der  christi.  Apologetik 
des  2.  Jahrh.,  part  I:  Die  Apologie  Tatians,  Leipzig,  1878.  B.  Ponschab, 
Tatians  Rede  an  die  Griechen  (Progr.),  Metten,  1895.  R.  C.  Kukida, 
Tatians  sog.  Apologie,  Leipzig,  1900.  P.  Fiebig,  in  Zeitschr.  für  Kirchen- 
geschichte (1901),  xxi.  149  —  159.  W.  Steuer,  Die  Gottes-  und  Logoslehre 
des  Tatian,  Gütersloh,  1893.  A.  Kalkmann,  Tatians  Nachrichten  über  Kunst- 
werke, in  Rheinisches  Museum  für  Philol.,  new  series  (1887),  xlii.  489 — 524. 
F.  Kukula,  Altersbeweis  und  Künstlerkatalog  in  Tatians  Rede  an  die 
Griechen  (Progr.),  Wien,  1900.  A.  Puech,  Recherches  sur  le  discours  aux 
Grecs  de  Tatien  suivies  d'une  traduction  du  discours,  avec  notes,  Paris,  1903. 
H.  U.  Meyboom,  Tatianus  en  zijne  Apologie,  in  Theol.  Tijdschrift  (1903), 
xxxvii.   193 — 247. 

3.  THE  DIATESSARON.  —  There  is  extant,  at  least  in  fragments, 
a  second  work  of  Tatian,  the  so-called  Diatessaron.  It  was  a  Gospel- 
harmony,  or  story  of  the  life  and  works  of  Our  Lord  compiled  from 
the  four  canonical  Gospels.  The  Greeks  *  called  it  to  oca  rzaadpcov 
ebayjihov  \  by  the  Syrians  it  was  entitled  the  «Evangelion  da  Mephar- 
reshe»  2.  Its  chronology  was  framed  on  that  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  the 
first  verses  of  which  served  as  an  introduction.  The  genealogies  were 
left  out3,  and  in  their  place  a  few  apocryphal  additions  were  inserted. 
This  work  is  an  important  witness  to  the  authority  of  the  four  canonical 
Gospels,  and  was  composed  by  Tatian  in  the  last  years  of  his  life,  after 
his  apostasy,  probably  not  in  Greek  but  in  Syriac,  though  it  was  based 
on  the  Greek  text  of  the  Gospels.  During  the  whole  third  century,  this 
harmony  was  the  only  Gospel  text  in  use  throughout  many  Christian 
communities  of  Syria,  particularly  at  Edessa.  It  was  only  after  the 
middle  of  the  fourth  century  that  the  «Gospel  of  the  Mixed»  gradually 
gave  way,  perforce,  to  the  «Gospel  of  the  Separated»,  i.  e.  to  the 
four  Gospels.  Between  360  and  370,  St.  Ephraem  Syrus  wrote  a 
commentary  on  the  Diatessaron  of  Tatian ;  Theodoret  of  Cyrus,  who 
died  about  458,  found  it  necessary  to  remove  from  the  churches 
of  his  diocese  more  than  two  hundred  copies  of  this  work,  in  the 
place  of  which  he  put  the  Syriac  version  of  the  four  Gospels  (Theod.  1.  c). 
It  is  possible  to  partially  reconstruct  the  Diatessaron  by  means  of 
the  commentary  of  St.  Ephraem,  whose  original  Syriac  text,  however, 

1  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,   iv.  29,  6;    Theodor.,  Haeret.  fab.  comp.,   i.  20. 

2  i.  e.   Gospel  of  the  Mixed.  3  Mt.  i.    1  ff.;  Lk.  iii.  23  ff. 


60  FIRST    PERIOD.       SECOND    SECTION. 

is  lost,  and  is  represented  by  an  Armenian  version.  For  this  pur- 
pose some  Syriac  fragments  are  also  accessible,  together  with  two 
later  revisions  of  the  Diatessaron:  one  in  Latin,  preserved  in  the 
Codex  Fuldensis  of  the  Vulgate,  written  at  Capua  about  545,  and  one 
in  Arabic,  more  recent  in  date,  it  is  true,  but  decidedly  nearer  to 
the  original  text. 

The  reconstruction  of  the  Diatessaron  in  Zahn,  Tatians  Diatessaron, 
1881,  pp.  112 — 219,  is  based  chietly  on  the  Latin  version  of  the  commentary 
of  Ephraem  made  by  J.  B.  Aucher  and  published  by  G.  Mösinger,  Venice, 
1876.  Cf.  §  82,  5  for  the  more  recent  contributions  to  our  knowledge  of  this 
commentary  made  by  jf.  Rendel  Harris  and  J.  H.  Hill.  The  Latin  version 
is  the  work  of  an  anonymous  writer  who  lived  about  500  and  used  the 
Latin  text  of  the  Gospels,  revised  by  St.  Jerome  about  383.  Victor,  bishop 
of  Capua,  who  died  in  554,  caused  this  recension  to  be  inserted  in  the 
Codex  Fuldensis  of  the  New  Testament  Vulgate,  written  under  his  supervision; 
it  there  took  the  place  of  the  four  Gospels.  In  the  preface  Victor  speaks  of 
the  data  furnished  by  Eusebius  concerning  the  Diatessaron  of  Tatian  (Hist. 
eccl.,  iv.  29,  6)  and  of  the  attempts  of  Ammonius  of  Alexandria  (Eus.,  Ep. 
ad  Carpianum)  to  compile  a  harmony.  This  explains  why  this  Latin  Gospel- 
harmony  is  sometimes  printed  under  the  name  of  Tatian,  and  again  (Migne, 
PL.,  lxviii.  251 — 358)  under  that  of  Ammonius.  There  is  an  excellent  edition 
of  the  Codex  Fuldensis  by  E.  Ranke,  Marburg  and  Leipzig,  1868.  Er.  P.  A. 
(later  Cardinal)  Ciasca  edited  the  Arabic  revision,  Rome,  1888,  from  two 
manuscripts,  and  added  a  Latin  translation.  Mr.  and  Mrs.  H.  W.  Hogg 
translated  the  Arabic  text  into  English  in  the  Ante-Nicene  Christian  Library 
(additional  volume),  Edinburgh,  1897,  pp.  ^ — 138.  Some  new  Syriac  frag- 
ments were  published  by  H.  Goussen,  in  Studia  theologica,  Leipzig,  1895, 
i.  62 — 67.  Amid  the  copious  literature  on  the  Diatessaron  the  book  of  Zahn, 
cited  above,  is  especially  worthy  of  mention.  Cf.  the  continuation  of  Zahn's 
own  studies,  in  his  Forschungen  zur  Geschichte  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons 
(1883),  ii.  286 — 299,  and  in  his  Geschichte  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  (1888), 
i.  1,  369 — 429;  (1892),  ii.  2,  530 — 556.  Cf.  also  J.  P.  P.  Martin,  in  Revue 
des  questions  historiques  (1883),  xxxiii.  349 — 394;  (1888),  xliv.  5—  50.  On 
the  Arabic  version  the  reader  may  consult  E.  Sellin  in  Zahn,  Forschungen 
zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  (1891),  iv.  225 — 246.  «Zur  Geschichte 
von  Tatian's  Diatessaron  im  Abendland»  cf.  Zahn,  in  Neue  kirchl.  Zeitschr. 
(1894),  v.  85 — 120.  M.  Mäher,  Recent  Evidence  for  the  Authenticity  of 
the  Gospels:  Tatian's  Diatessaron,  London,  1893.  A.  Hjelt,  Die  altsyrischen 
Evangelien-Übersetzungen  und  Tatians  Diatessaron,  besonders  in  ihrem 
gegenseitigen  Verhältnis  untersucht,  Leipzig,  1901.  H.  Gr essmann,  Studien 
zum  syrischen  Tetraevangelium,  i.,  in  Zeitschr.  für  die  neutestamentl.  Wissen- 
schaft (1904),  pp.  175,  248 — 252.  E.  Crawford  Burkitt ,  Evangelion  da 
Mepharreshe,  The  Curetonian  Version  of  the  Four  Gospels,  with  the  read- 
ings of  the  Sinai  Palimpsest  and  the  Early  Syriac  Patristic  Evidence,  etc., 
Cambridge  University  Press,  1904,  i.  xix,  556;  ii  (introduction  and  notes) 
vii,  322.  J.  E.  Stenning,  (art.)  «Diatessaron»  in  Hastings'  Diet,  of  the  Bible 
(extra  vol.,   1904)  pp.  451 — 461. 

4.  LOST  WRITINGS.  —  Other  works  of  Tatian  have  entirely 
perished.  He  mentions  in  his  Apology  (c.  15)  a  work  «On  animals» 
(nep\  tZwwv),  and  another  (c.  16)  in  which  he  treated  of  the  nature 
of  demons.  He  promised  a  book  (c.  40)  «Against  those  who  have 
treated  of  divine  things»   (npoQ  touq  ä7ro<prjvap£vo>jQ  xa  izep\  tteouj,  per- 


§    19-     MILTIADES.      APOLLINARIS    OF    HIERAPOLIS.      MELITO    OF    SARDES.      6 1 

haps  a  refutation  of  heathen  anti-Christian  calumnies.  Rhodon,  a 
disciple  of  Tatian,  mentions1  a  «Book  of  problems»  (TcpoßXrjpd.Tojv 
ßtßliov),  in  which  Tatian  undertook  to  demonstrate  the  existence  of 
errors  and  antilogies  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures  (of  the  Old  Testament). 
Clement  of  Alexandria  mentions  and  refutes 2  a  work  of  Tatian  « On 
perfection  according  to  the  precepts  of  the  Saviour»  (nepi  too  xaru 
ibv  acoryjpa  xazapTiapou).  We  learn  from  Eusebius3  that  «Meta- 
phrases» or  corrections  of  certain  sayings  of  St.  Paul  were  attributed 
to  Tatian. 

The  «testimonia»  relative  to  the  lost  writings  are  to  be  found  in 
the  current  editions  of  the  «Oratio»;  de  Otto,  pp.  164  sq.,  and  Schwartz, 
pp.  48  sq. 

§  igt     Miltiades.     Apollinaris  of  Hierapolis.     Melito  of  Sardes. 

1.  MILTIADES.  —  Miltiades  of  Asia  Minor  was  a  contemporary 
of  Tatian,  and  perhaps  also  a  disciple  of  Justin4.  He  defended 
the  Christian  truth  against  pagans,  Jews  and  heretics,  but  all  his 
writings  have  fallen  a  prey  to  time.  We  know  from  later  writers 
that  he  composed  a  work  against  the  Montanists  5  in  which  he  sought 
to  prove  that  a  prophet  should  not  speak  in  ecstacy  (nepi  too  py 
Ss7u  npofijTrjv  iv  kxozdaei  Xalelv),  and  another  against  the  Valentinian 
Gnostics  (Tert.  1.  a),  also  a  work  in  two  books  against  the  heathens 
(•Kpoo,  "EAXyvagJ,  another  in  two  books  against  the  Jews  (TvpÖQ  'lou- 
dacougj,  and  an  Apology  for  «Christian  philosophy»  addressed  to 
«temporal  rulers»  6. 

The  «testimonia»  relative  to  Miltiades  are  given  by  de  Otto,  Corpus 
Apolog. ,  ix.  364 — 373;  cf.  Harnack ,  Geschichte  der  altchristl.  Literatur, 
i.  255  ff.;  ii.   1,  361  ff. 

2.  APOLLINARIS.  —  Claudius  Apollinaris,  bishop  of  Hierapolis, 
in  the  reign  of  Marcus  Aurelius,  left  a  number  of  works.  Eusebius 
mentions7  a  «Defence  of  the  Christian  faith»  presented  to  Marcus  Au- 
relius, apparently  in  172,  five  books  against  the  Pagans  (Tzpbg'Elkqvaq,), 
two  books  on  Truth  (nep\  dXydsiagJ,  a  Circular  Letter  against  the  Mon- 
tanists with  the  «subscriptions»  or  opinions  of  other  bishops,  a  work 
On  Easter8  (nspi  zoo  ndoya),  and  one  on  Religion  (nspi  sdtrsßscaQj9, 
identical  perhaps  with  the  «Defence  of  the  Christian  faith».  All  of 
these  writings  have  perished. 

1  Ems.,  Hist,  eccl.,  v.    13,   8.  2  Strom.,  iii.    12,   81. 

3  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.   29,   6. 

4  Teriull.,  Adv.  Valent,   c.   5;  Hippolyius  in  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  v.   28,  4. 

5  Anonym,   apud  Eus.   1.  c,  v.    17,    1.  6  Eus.  1.   c,  v.    17,   5. 

7  Ib.,  iv.   26,    1;  27;   Chron.  ad  a.  Abraham  2187:  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.  27;  ib.,  v.    19. 

8  It  is  twice  cited  in  the  Chronicon  Paschale,  ed.  Dindorf,  pp.    13 — 14. 

9  Phot.,  Bibl.  Cod.    14. 


62  FIRST    PERIOD.       SECOND    SECTION. 

The  «testimonia»  and  fragments  are  in  Routh,  Reliquiae  Sacrae,  2.  ed., 
i.  155 — 174;  de  Otto  1.  c,  ix.  479 — 495.  Cf.  Harnack  1.  c,  i.  243 — 246; 
ii.  1,  358 sq.;  Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons, 
(1893),  v.  3  sq. 

3.  MELITO.  —  Still  more  extensive  and  varied  was  the  literary- 
activity  of  a  third  native  of  Asia  Minor,  Melito,  bishop  of  Sardes  in 
Lydia.  He  died  before  194 — 195  «a  eunuch»  (i.  e.  unmarried),  and  «in 
all  his  life  and  works  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit»,  widely  honoured  also 
as  a  prophet1.  Eusebius  and  Anastasius  Sinaita  were  acquainted  with 
the  following  works  of  Melito:  a)  a  brief  Apology  for  the  Christian 
faith,  presented  to  Marcus  Aurelius  perhaps  in  172,  some  fragments 
of  which  are  extant2;  b)  two  books  on  Easter  fnsp}  too  izdaya)  com- 
posed during  the  proconsulate  of  Servilius  Paulus,  or  rather,  as  Ru- 
finus states,  in  that  of  Sergius  Paulus,  perhaps  166  — 167  {Eus.,  Hist, 
eccl.  iv.  26,  2 — 3);  c)  On  the  Right  Way  of  Living  and  the  Pro- 
phets {nepl  TtoliTEiac,  Jtat  TipcxpyjTwv,  id.  1.  c.  iv.  26,  2;  Hier.  1.  c. : 
De  vita  prophetarum),  probably  a  work  against  Montanism;  d)  On 
the  Church  (mp\  ixxÄTjmaq,  Ens.;  e)  On  Sunday  (izc.p\  xupiaxrjq  id.); 

f)  On  the  Nature  of  Man  (nep}  (poaecoq,  al.    ttccttscoq,  ävfrpd)7Zou,  id.); 

g)  On  the  Creation  of  Man  (nep\  Tihlaewq,  id.) ;  h)  On  the  Obedience 
of  Faith  (nsp\  uTiaxoTJq  Ttioreajq,  id.) ;  i)  On  the  Senses  (nep\  UTiaxoyq 
TtiazecüQ  alaM'/jrypuou,  id.).  According  to  other  text-witnesses  this  title 
is  corrupt ,  and  contains  really  two  titles ;  k)  On  Baptism  fjrsp}  Aou- 
rpou,  id.) ;  1)  On  Truth  (rcep\  alrftziaq,  id.) ;  m)  On  the  Creation  and 
Birth  of  Christ  fnspl  xriaewq  xat  ysuscrscoq  Xpcarou,  id.);  n)  On  Pro- 
phecy (mp\  7ipo(prjveiaQ,  id.;  Rufinus,  Prophetia  eius;  Hier.,  De  pro- 
phetia  sua,  probably  against  Montanism) ;  o)  On  Hospitality  (nepi  iptlo- 
^eviaq,  Eus.);  p)  The  Key  fcH  xAeiq,  id.);  q)  On  the  Devil  (nepl  too 
diaßoXoo,  id.) ;  r)  On  the  Revelation  of  John  fnepi  too  dtaßoXoo  xa\ 
ttjq  d7toxaX6(ps(üq  'Icodvvou,  id. ;  Rufinus,  De  diabolo,  De  revelatione 
Ioannis;  Hier.,  De  diabolo,  De  apocalypsi  Ioannis);  s)  On  the  Cor- 
poreity of  God  frrep}  evacopdzoo  deoo,  Eus.;  Trepl  xou  evocopazov  slvat 
rbv  ftzov,  Orig.,  Sei.  in  Gen.  ad  i.  26) ;  t)  Extracts  C'ExXoyat,  Eus.), 
i.  e.  «Extracts  from  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  concerning  our  Saviour 
and  our  entire  faith»  in  six  books.  Eusebius  gives  (1.  c.  iv.  26,  12 — 14) 
the  preface  of  the  work ;  u)  On  the  Passion  of  the  Lord  (scq  to  Ttdttoq, 
Anast.  Sin.,  Viae  dux,  c.  12,  a  short  citation);  v)  On  the  Incarnation 
of  Christ  (nep\  aapxcoaecoq  Xptazoü),  an  anti-Marcionite  work,  in  at  least 
three  books,  id.  1.  c.  c.  13,  a  rather  long  citation.  All  these  works  are 
lost.  Besides  the  already  cited  fragments  there  remain  four  scholia  on 
the  sacrifice  of  Isaac  as  a  type  of  the  Crucifixion  of  Christ.  They  were 
taken,  probably,  from  the  «Extracts»  mentioned  by  Eusebius,  but  were 

1  Polycr.  in  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  v.   24,   5.      Tertull.  in  Hier.,  De  vir.  ill.  c.   24. 

2  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.  13,  8;  26,  1  —  2;  5  — 11;  Chron.  ad  a.  Abr.  2187;  Chron. 
Pasch,   ed.  Dindorf,  483. 


§19.      MILTIADES.       APOLLINARIS    OF    HIERAPOLIS.       MELITO    OF   SARDES.  63 

already  corrupted  by  spurious  additions.  There  is  also  an  interesting 
fragment  on  the  baptism  of  the  Lord  in  the  Jordan,  very  probably 
from  the  homonymous  work  in  the  catalogue  of  Eusebius.  Four 
fragments,  preserved  in  Syriac  only,  ought  to  be  considered  as  be- 
longing to  Melito :  ex  Tractatu  de  anima  et  corpore,  ex  Sermone  de 
cruce,  De  fide,  Melitonis  episcopi  urbis  Atticae ;  in  other  codices,  it 
is  true,  they  bear  the  name  of  Alexander  of  Alexandria  (f  328).  On 
the  other  hand,  Melito  is  not  the  author  of  an  Apology  that  has  come 
down  to  us  in  Syriac,  entitled  Oratio  Melitonis  philosophi  quae  habita 
est  coram  Antonino  Caesar e.  It  is  an  energetic  polemic  against  polytheism 
and  idolatry,  akin  to  the  Apology  of  the  Athenian  Aristides,  very  pro- 
bably of  Syriac  origin,  and  belonging  to  the  end  of  the  second  or  the  be- 
ginning of  the  third  century;  and  the  Syriac  text  is  probably  not  a 
translation  but  the  original.  An  Armenian  fragment  of  four  lines,  ex  Me- 
litonis epistola  ad  Eutrepium,  and  several  Latin  treatises,  De  passione 
S.  Joannis  Evajigelistae,  De  transitu  B.  Mariae  Virginis,  Clavis  Scrip- 
turae,  Catena  in  Apocalypsin,  are  wrongly  ascribed  to  him.  Cardinal 
Pitra,  the  editor  of  the  extensive  Clavis  Scripturae,  tried  to  recognize 
in  it  a  translation  or  rather  a  revision  and  enlargement  of  the  «Key» 
of  Melito,  mentioned  in  Eusebius.  In  reality  it  is  a  biblical  glossary 
compiled  from  Augustine,  Gregory  the  Great,  and  other  Latin  Fathers. 
At  the  present  it  cannot  be  more  precisely  dated ;  we  know  however 
that  no  attempt  was  made  to  identify  it  with  the  «Key»  before  the 
eleventh  century. 

The  «testimonia»  and  the  fragments  are  in  Ronth  1.  a,  i.  11 1 — 153; 
de  Otto  1.  c,  ix.  374 — 478,  497 — 512.  Cf.  Harnack  1.  c,  i.  246 — 255;  ii. 
1,  358  fr.,  517  ff.,  522  ff.  C.  Thomas,  Melito  von  Sardes,  Osnabrück,  1893. 
The  Greek  fragment  «on  Baptism»  was  edited  by  Pitra,  Analecta  Sacra 
(1884),  ii.  3 — 5;  for  its  textual  criticism  see  y.  M.  Mercati ,  in  Theol. 
Quartalschr.  (1894),  lxxvi.   597  —  600. 

The  Syriac  Apology  and  the  four  Syriac  fragments  were  first  edited 
by  W.  Cureton,  Spicilegium  Syriacum,  London,  1855.  All  these  fragments, 
Syriac  and  Latin  (with  exception  of  the  fourth),  as  edited  by  E.  Penan, 
are  to  be  found  in  Pitra,  Spicil.  Solesm.  (1855),  ii.  de  Otto  gives  (1.  c.) 
all  the  Syriac  fragments  (pp.  497- — 512),  also  the  Latin  (pp.  419 — 432);  cf. 
pp.  453 — 478.  There  is  a  German  version  of  the  Apology  (from  the  Syriac) 
by  B.  Weite,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1862),  xliv.  384 — 410,  and  another  from 
the  Latin  version  of  v.  Otto,  by  V.  Gröne,  in  Bibliothek  der  Kirchenväter, 
Kempten,  1873.  For  the  Apology  cf.  Harnack  1.  c,  ii.  1,  522  ff.,  and  the 
literature  there  indicated.  On  the  four  fragments  see  G.  Krüger,  in  Zeitschr. 
für  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1888),  xxxi.  434 — 448;  Thomas  1.  c,  pp.  40 — 51. 
The  four  Armenian  lines  ex  Melitonis  epistola  ad  Eutrepium  are  in  Pitra, 
Analecta  Sacra  (1883),  iv.  16  292.  The  Clavis  Scripturae  was  twice  edited 
by  Pitra:  in  its  longer  form  in  Spicil.  Solesm.  (1855),  ii — iii.  1,  and  in  the 
shorter,  more  original  form,  in  Analecta  Sacra  (1884),  ii.  For  more 
specific  information  see  O.  Rottmanner,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1896),  lxxviii. 
614 — 629.  For  the  other  Latin  writings  mentioned  above  cf.  Harnack  1.  c, 
i.  252 — 254.  H  Jordan,  Melito  und  Novatian,  in  Archiv  für  latein.  Lexiko- 
graphie und  Grammatik  (1902),  xii.  59—68. 


64  FIRST    PERIOD.       SECOND    SECTION. 

§  20.     Athenagoras  of  Athens. 

1.  HIS  LIFE.  —  In  the  title  of  his  Apology,  whose  manuscript-tradi- 
tion can  be  traced  to  the  year  914,  Athenagoras  is  called  the  « Christian 
philosopher  of  Athens»  (AttyvouoQ,  (pdoacxpoQ  yptonavoQ).  Very  unreliable, 
however,  are  the  data  that  an  anonymous  writer  on  the  Alexandrine 
teachers  pretends  to  have  found  in  the  «Christian  History»  of  Philippus 
Sidetes  (§  79,  2).  According  to  them  Athenagoras  presented  an  Apo- 
logy to  Hadrian  and  Antoninus  (Pius),  and  was  the  first  master  of  the 
Alexandrine  catechetical  school.  The  introduction  to  the  Apology  is 
a  proof  that  it  was  addressed  to  Marcus  Aurelius  and  Commodus,  and 
was,  therefore,  composed  between  November  176  and  March  180 
—  probably  in  177.  .  It  is  possible  that  the  hypothesis  of  Zahn  is  correct : 
he  identifies  our  Athenagoras  with  another  of  the  same  name  to 
whom,  after  180,  Boethus  of  Alexandria  dedicated  his  book  «on  the 
difficult  expressions  in  Plato»1. 

Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  i.  256 — 258;  ii.  1,  317 — 319 
710.     A.  Eberhard,  Athenagoras  (Progr.),  Augsburg,   1895. 

2.  HIS  WORKS.  —  The  purpose  of  his  Apology  or  «Supplication»  for 
the  Christians  (jzpeaßsia  mp\  ypianavcov,  Supplicatio  seu  legatio  pro  Chri- 
stianis) is  to  show  the  absurdity  of  the  calumnies  current  against  them, 
viz.  atheism,  Thyestean  banquets,  Oedipean  incest  (c.  3).  The  first  accu- 
sation is  very  solidly  refuted  by  a  splendid  exposition  and  demonstration 
of  the  Christian  doctrine  concerning  God  (cc.  4 — 30).  The  other  two 
imputations  are  disproved  by  a  brief  resume  of  the  principles  of  Chris- 
tian morality  (cc.  32 — 36).  It  is  only  en  passant  that  the  Apology  deals 
polemically  with  heathenism;  otherwise  in  contents  it  closely  re- 
sembles the  Dialogue  of  Minucius  Felix,  though  it  cannot  be  shown 
that  the  latter  made  use  of  the  work  of  Athenagoras.  The  only  certain 
traces  of  its  presence  in  ancient  Christian  literature*  are  found  in 
Methodius  of  Olympus  2,  and  in  Philippus  Sidetes,  as  described  above. 
Still  less  attention  was  paid  in  antiquity  to  his  work  « On  the  Resurrection 
of  the  dead»  (Ilspt  dvaardaewQ  vexpwv).  In  the  Arethas-Codex  of  914 
it  follows  the  Apology  and  is  attributed  to  the  same  author.  No  other 
witness  to  this  work  is  forthcoming ;  nevertheless,  there  is  no  reason 
to  deny  the  assertion  of  the  manuscript,  all  the  more  as  Athenagoras 
himself,  at  the  end  of  his  Apology  (c.  36,  al.  37),  promises  a  discussion 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection.  The  work  is  divided  into  two 
parts.  In  the  first  the  objections  against  the  possibility  of  the  re- 
surrection are  refuted  (cc.  1 — 10);  in  the  second  (cc.  11 — 25)  the 
author  undertakes  to  prove  the  reality  of  the  resurrection :  a)  from  the 
destination  of  man,  and  of  every  rational  creature,  to  be  and  live  without 
end;  b)  from  human  nature,  a  synthesis  of  soul  and  body  (cc.  14 — 17); 

1  Phot.,  Bibl.  Cod.    155. 

2  De  resurr.,  i.   37,    1.   (ed.  Bonwetsdi). 


§    2  1.       THEOPHILUS    OF    ANTIOCH.  65 

c)  from  the  necessity  of  a  retribution,  not  alone  for  the  soul  but  for 
the  body  (cc.  18 — 23);  d)  from  the  last  end  fziXogJ  of  man,  that  is 
unattainable  in  this  life  (cc.  24 — 25). 

All  the  known  codices  of  the  Apology  and  the  treatise  on  the  Resurrec- 
tion are  based  on  one  archetype,  the  Arethas-Codex  (§  13).  The  treatise 
on  the  Resurrection  was  first  edited  by  P.  Nannius  (Louvain,  1541),  and 
the  Apology  by  C.  Gesner  (Zürich,  1557).  For  the  editions  of  both  by  Morelli 
and  Maranus  (Gallandi,  Migne) ,  de  Otto  (Corpus  apolog.  vii.)  cf.  §  13. 
The  most  recent  edition  is  that  by  Ed.  Schwartz,  Leipzig,  1891  (Texte  und 
Untersuchungen,  iv.  2).  Both  works  were  translated  into  German  by 
Al.  Bieringer ,  Kempten,  1875  (Bibl.  der  Kirchenväter).  There  is  an 
English  translation  by  B.  P.  Pratten ,  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (Am.  ed. 
1885),  ii.  129 — 162.  C.  J.  Hefele,  Beiträge  zur  Kirchengesch. ,  Archäo- 
logie und  Liturgik,  Tübingen,  1864,  i.  60 — 86:  «Lehre  des  Athenagoras 
und  Analyse  seiner  Schriften.»  R.  Förster,  Über  die  ältesten  Herabilder, 
nebst  einem  Exkurs  über  die  Glaubwürdigkeit  der  kunstgeschichtl.  An- 
gaben des  Athenagoras  (Progr.),  Breslau,  1868.  L.  Amould,  De  Apologia 
Athenagorae,  Paris,   1898. 

3.  CHARACTERISTICS.  Athenagoras  is  a  very  attractive  writer.  In 
originality  of  thought  he  yields,  possibly,  to  his  predecessors  Justin 
and  Tatian,  but  he  far  surpasses  them  in  felicity  of  expression,  purity 
and  beauty  of  diction,  simplicity  and  lucidity  of  arrangement.  He  is 
well  acquainted  with  the  Greek  classics.  His  Apology  even  betrays 
a  certain  fondness  for  the  citation  of  poets  and  philosophers.  In 
accord  with  Justin,  and  in  opposition  to  Tatian,  he  exhibits  a  friendly 
attitude  toward  Greek  philosophy,  especially  Platonism.  Out  of  the 
treasure  of  Christian  doctrine  he  selects  only  such  principles  as  seem 
best  adapted  to  blunt  the  edge  of  heathen  calumny.  For  him 
the  witnesses  and  guarantors  of  Christian  faith  are  the  prophets, 
«Moses,  Isaias,  Jeremias,  and  the  others»  whose  mouth  acted  as  an 
organ  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  even  as  the  flute  is  the  organ  of  the  flute- 
player  (Supplic.  cc.  7  9).  The  rational  proof  of  the  unity  of  God 
(c.  8)  merits  attention,  as  it  is  the  first  scientific  attempt  of  the  Chris- 
tians to  justify  their  monotheism.  He  bears  witness  to  the  Blessed 
Trinity  with  almost  startling  clearness  and  precision  (see  especially  c.  10). 

F.  Schübring ;  Die  Philosophie  des  Athenagoras  (Progr.),  Berlin,  1882. 
A.  Joannides,  HpafjAaTsfa  irepl  xr\z  ^ap'  'Aö^va^opa  «piXoarocpixTJc  fH&OBtas  (Dissert, 
inaug.),  Jena,  1883.  J.  Lehmann,  Die  Auferstehungslehre  des  Athenagoras 
(Inaug.-Dissert),  Leipzig,  1890.  P.  Logothetes ,  CH  xholofa  xou  'A^va-ppou 
(Dissert,  inaug.),  Leipzig,  1893.  A.  Pommrich,  Des  Apologeten  Theophilus 
von  Antiochien  Gottes-  und  Logoslehre,  dargestellt  unter  Berücksichtigung 
der  gleichen  Lehre  des  Athenagoras  von  Athen,  Dresden,  1902. 

§  21.     Theophilus  of  Antioch. 

I.  HIS  LIFE.  Theophilus  is  the  sixth  or,  including  St.  Peter,  the 
seventh  bishop  of  Antioch  fc    Eusebius  relates  that  Theophilus  became 

1  Eus.,  Chron.  ad  a.  Abraham  2185;  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.  20.  St.  Jer.,  De  viris  illustr., 
c.   25;  Ep.   121,   6. 

Bakdenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  5 


66  FIRST    PERIOD.       SECOND    SECTION. 

bishop  of  that  see  in  169,  and  his  successor  Maximinus  in  177 1.  The 
latter  date  conflicts  with  the  fact  that  the  last  of  the  three  books 
Ad  Auto ly cum,  which  Eusebius  himself  says  2  were  written  by  Theo- 
philus,  must  have  been  composed  some  little  time  after  the  death 
of  Marcus  Aurelius  (March  17,  180;  op.  cit.  cc.  27 — 28).  Taking 
the  contradiction  for  granted,  it  is  better  to  assume  with  Harnack 
that  the  second  date  is  erroneous  than  to  admit  with  Erbes  another 
and  a  later  Theophilus  as  author  of  the  books  Ad  Autolycum.  From 
internal  evidence  it  appears  (i.  14)  that  the  author  had  reached  a 
mature  age  when  he  abandoned  heathenism  for  Christianity ;  that  his 
home  was  not  far  from  the  Euphrates  and  the  Tigris,  and  that  he 
was  probably  born  in  that  neighbourhood  (ii.  24) ;  that  he  had  received 
the  training  of  an  Hellene,  but  possessed  also  a  certain  knowledge 
of  Hebrew  (ii.    12,  24;  iii.    19). 

C.  Erbes,  Die  Lebenszeit  des  Hippolytus  nebst  der  des  Theophilus  von 
Antiochien,  in  Jahrbücher  für  prot.  Theol.  (1888),  xiv.  61 1—  656.  Harnack, 
Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  i.  496—502;  ii.  208 — 213  319  fr.  534  ff. 

2.  THE  THREE  BOOKS  AD  AUTOLYCUM.  The  three  books  TipoQ 
AötoÄoxov  are  held  together  by  a  slender  thread.  If  it  be  true  that 
the  third  book  was  composed  about  181  — 182,  the  other  two  may 
well  have  been  written  at  a  much  earlier  date.  In  the  first  book, 
apropos  of  a  conversation  with  his  heathen  friend  Autolycus,  the 
author  treats  of  the  faith  of  Christians  in  an  invisible  God  (cc.  2 — n) 
and  of  the  name  «Christian»  (c.  12).  As  a  complement  and  illustration 
of  the  first  book,  the  second  discusses  the  folly  of  heathen  idolatry 
(cc.  2 — 8)  and  offers  a  comprehensive  view  of  the  teachings  of  the 
prophets,  «men  of  God  and  representatives  of  the  Holy  Spirit» 
(cc.  9 — 38).  The  third  book  shows  the  futility  of  the  anti-Christian 
calumnies  (Thyestean  banquets  and  Oedipean  incest,  cc.  4 — 15),  and 
offers  proof  that  the  Sacred  Scriptures  of  the  Christians  are  much  older 
than  the  beginnings  of  Greek  history  and  literature,  older  even  than  the 
mythological  epoch  of  the  Greeks  (cc.  16  —  29).  The  style  of  Theophilus 
is  smooth  and  unembarrassed,  vigorous  and  lively;  a  characteristic  trait 
is  his  recognition  of  the  subjective  conditions  of  faith  and  the  depen- 
dence of  religious  knowledge  on  purity  of  mind  (i.  2  ff).  He  attributes 
an  identical  authority  to  the  writings  of  the  Evangelists  (ii.  22;  iii.  12), 
to  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  (iii.  14),  and  to  the  Prophets  (ii.  9;  iii.  12). 
He  is  the  first  to  use  the  term  rpiaq  to  indicate  the  distinction  of 
persons  in  the  Godhead  (ii.    15) 

The  books  Ad  Autolycum  have  come  down  to  us  in  the  eleventh-century 
Codex  Marcianus  496,  and  of  others  that  depend  upon  it.  J.  Frisius 
(C.  Gesner)  published  the  editio  princeps,  Zürich,  1546;  for  later  editions 
see  §  13.    The  most  recent  is  that  of  de  Otto,  Corp.  apolog.,  viii.    A  German 

1  Chron.  ad  a.  Abraham  2185   2193.  2  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.   24. 


§    21.      THEOPHILUS    OF    ANTIOCH.  6j 

version  was  made  by  J.  Leitl  (Bibl.  der  Kirchenväter),  Kempten,  1873.  There 
is  an  English  translation  by  M.  Dods ,  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (Am.  ed. 
1885),  ii.  89 — 121.  For  the  concept  of  faith  in  this  work  of  Theophilus 
cf.  L.  Paul,  in  Jahrbücher  für  prot.  Theol.  (1875),  i-  546 — 559.  The  evi- 
dence of  Theophilus  to  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament  is  treated  by 
Harnack,  in  Zeitschr.  für  Kirchengesch.  (1889 — I^9o),  xi.  1 — 21.  For  his 
teaching  concerning  God  cf.  G.  Karabangelcs,  Leipzig,  1891  (Dissert,  inaug.), 
and  O.  Gross,  Chemnitz,  1896  (Progr.).  A.  Pommrich,  Des  Apologeten 
Theophilus  von  Antiochien  Gottes-  und  Logoslehre,  etc.,  Dresden,  1902. 
O.  Clausen,  Die  Theologie  des  Theophilus  von  Antiochien,  in  Zeitschr.  für 
wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1902),  xlv.  81  — 141 ;  (1903),  xlvi.   195 — 213. 

3.  LOST  WRITINGS.  Theophilus  often  refers  to  a  previous  work 
of  his,  the  first  book  of  which  was  entitled  Ttepl  laropi&v;  it  dealt 
with  the  earliest  history  of  mankind  (ii.  30).  The  citations  of  John 
Malalas  (ed.  Dindorf  29,  al.  59)  from  a  «Theophilus  chronographer» 
are  very  probably  not  from  this  work.  —  Eusebius  mentions 1  a  work 
of  Theophilus,  Against  the  heresy  of  Hermogenes  (npoQ  rr/v  aipeoiv 
'EppoyevouQj,  some  catechetical  writings  (riva  xazTflpycixa  ßißXia)  men- 
tioned also  by  St.  Jerome2,  and  a  work  against  Marcion  fxava  Map- 
xiwvogj.  St.  Jerome  mentions  also  (ibid.)  two  works  current  under  the 
name  of  Theophilus :  Commentaries  on  the  Gospel 3,  and  on  the 
Proverbs  of  Solomon  (in  Evangelium  et  in  Proverbia  Salomonis  com- 
mentarii).  De  la  Bigne  published  (1575)  under  the  name  of  Theo- 
philus a  Latin  Commentary  on  the  Gospels,  an  unorderly  collection 
of  allegorical  scholia  on  excerpts  from  the  four  Gospels.  It  ought 
not  to  be  identified,  as  is  done  by  Zahn,  with  the  Commentary 
described  by  St.  Jerome,  nor  should  it  be  attributed  to  Theophilus. 
It  is  rather,  what  Harnack  has  proved  it  to  be,  a  compilation  from 
Cyprian,  Jerome,  Ambrose,  the  pseudo-Arnobius  Junior,  and  Au- 
gustine, put  together  by  a  Latin  compiler,  probably  in  Southern  Gaul, 
and  toward  the  end  of  the  fifth  century.  In  three  ancient  manuscripts, 
unknown  to  Zahn,  there  is  a  prologue  to  the  work  in  which  the  an- 
onymous author  says  that  his  labours  are  an  anthology  from  earlier 
expositors  (tractatoribus  defloratis  opusculum  spiritale  composui). 

Editions  of  the  pseudo-Theophilus-commentary  on  the  Gospels  are  found 
in  De  la  Bigne,  Bibl.  SS.  Patrum,  Paris,  1575,  v.  169 — 192 ;  de  Otto,  Corpus 
apolog.,  viii.  278  —  326;  Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl. 
Kanons  (1883),  ii.  29 — 85.  For  the  three  codices  discovered  since  that 
date  cf.  Harnack,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  (1883),  i.  4,  159 — 175; 
Pitra,  Analecta  Sacra  (1884),  ii.  624—634,  649 — 650;  Zahn  1.  c,  ii.  (Der 
Evangelienkommentar  des  Theophilus  von  Antiochien),  also  (1884),  iii. 
198 — 277;  Harnack  \.  c,  pp.  97 — 176  (Der  angebliche  Evangelienkommen- 
tar des  Theophilus  von  Antiochien),  and  Theol.  Literaturzeitung,  1886, 
pp.  404  f.     A.  Hauck,   in  Zeitschrift   für   kirchl.  Wissenschaft   und   kirchl. 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.   24. 

2  De  viris  illustr.,  c.  25:  breves  elegantesque  tractatus  ad  aedificationem  ecclesiae 
pertinentes. 

3  Cf.  also  Ep.    121,   6;   Comm.  in  Matth.,  praef. 

5* 


68  FIRST    PERIOD.       SECOND    SECTION. 

Leben  (1884),  v.  561  —  568;  W.  Sanday,  in  Studia  Biblica,  Oxford,  1885, 
pp.  89 — 101 ;  W.  Bornemann,  in  Zeitschr.  für  Kirchengesch.  (1888 — 1889), 
x.   169 — 252,  also  took  part  in  the  controversy. 

§  22.     The  Letter  to  Diognetus. 

Under  the  name  of  Justin  Martyr  there  has  been  handed  down 
in  a  codex  of  the  thirteenth  or  fourteenth  century  a  Letter  to  Dio- 
gnetus (tiooq  Awyvy]rov),  which  purposes  to  reply  to  certain  questions 
asked  by  a  heathen  much  interested  in  Christianity.  These  questions 
deal  with  the  specific  nature  of  the  Christian  adoration  of  God  in 
contradistinction  to  the  pagan  and  the  Jewish  worship,  the  sur- 
prising change  of  life  and  the  remarkable  love  for  their  neighbour 
that  the  Christians  exhibit.  It  is  further  asked  why  this  new 
religion  should  have  appeared  now,  and  not  at  an  earlier  period. 
The  replies  to  these  questions  are  distinguished  for  elevation  of 
tone,  profound  grasp  of  the  Christian  ideas,  magnificence  and 
splendour  of  exposition.  The  portrait  of  the  daily  life  of  the  Chris- 
tians is  positively  fascinating  (cc.  5 — 6).  The  theme  is  exhausted  in 
the  tenth  chapter;  what  is  read  in  cc.  11  — 12  of  the  codex  does 
not  belong  to  the  original  Letter.  Nor  does  the  codex  deserve 
credence  as  to  the  author  of  the  document,  whose  fine  classical  dic- 
tion is  quite  irreconcilable  with  the  unstudied,  unornamented  and 
unimpassioned  style  of  Justin.  Regarding  the  letter  we  have  no 
information  from  extrinsic  sources.  Donaldson  attempted  to  show  that 
it  was  an  academic  exercise  in  style  or  declamation,  belonging  to  the 
fifteenth  or  sixteenth  century.  But  the  date  of  the  codex  suffices  to 
discredit  this  hypothesis.  Internal  evidence  would  show  that  the  work 
belongs  to  the  era  of  the  persecutions  (cc.  5  7).  It  does  not  belong, 
therefore,  to  the  post-Constantinian  period,  as  Overbeck  asserts,  but 
rather  to  the  second  or  third  century.  In  the  absence  of  more  posi- 
tive evidence  it  is  difficult  to  assign  a  more  precise  date,  though  the 
earlier  one  seems  preferable.  In  this  case  the  recipient  of  the  Letter 
might  have  been  Diognetus,  the  well-known  preceptor  of  Marcus 
Aurelius.  The  authorship  has  been  variously  attributed;  by  Bunsen 
to  Marcion,  by  Dräseke  to  Apelles,  the  disciple  of  Marcion,  by 
Doulcet,  Kihn,  and  Krüger  to  Aristides  of  Athens.  The  latter  hypo- 
thesis alone  merits  attention.  There  is  an  undeniable  relationship 
between  the  two  documents ;  but  something  more  is  needed  to 
render  probable  an  identity  of  authorship  or  even  a  contemporaneous 
composition  of  both  works. 

The  Letter  to  Diognetus  reached  us  in  only  one  manuscript,  the  Codex 
Argentoratensis  9  (§17,  2).  It  was  destroyed  by  the  fire  of  Strasburg  in  the 
siege  of  1870.  The  editio  princeps  is  that  of  H.  Stepkanus ,  Paris,  1592. 
Later  it  was  printed  among  the  works  of  Justin  (§  17,  2)  by  de  Otto,  Corpus 
apolog.  (1879),  m-  x5^ — 2II>  and  more  recently  among  the  works  of  the 
Apostolic  Fathers   by  von  Gebhardt  and  Harnack,    Barnabae  epist.    (1878), 


§    23.       HERMIAS.  69 

pp.  142 — 164,  and  by  Funk,  Opera  Patr.  apostol.  (1878,  1887,  1901), 
i.  310 — SS3-  The  latter  editor  was  the  first  to  make  use  (1901)  of  an 
ancient  copy  of  Codex  Argentoratensis  9,  preserved  at  Tübingen.  The 
Letter  has  been  often  translated  into  modern  languages.  We  are  indebted 
for  a  new  German  rendering  to  W.  Heinzelmann,  Erfurt,  1896.  There  is  an 
English  translation  by  Roberts  and  Donaldson,  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (Am. 
ed.  1885),  i.  25 — 30.  Cf.  J.  Donaldson,  A  Critical  History  of  Christian 
Literature  and  Doctrine,  London,  1866,  ii.  126 — 142.  Fr.  Overbeck,  Über 
den  pseudo-justinischen  Brief  an  Diognet  (Progr.),  Basel,  1872,  reprinted 
with  additions  in  the  same  author's  Studien  zur  Gesch.  der  alten  Kirche, 
Schloß  Chemnitz,  1875,  *■  r — 92-  J-  Dräseke ,  Der  Brief  an  Diognetos, 
Leipzig,  1881 ,  a  reprint  from  Jahrbücher  für  prot.  Theol.  (1881),  vii. 
H.  Kihn,  Der  Ursprung  des  Briefes  an  Diognet,  Freiburg,  1882.  G.  Krüger 
defended,  in  Zeitschr.  für  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1894),  xxxvii.  206 — 223,  the 
authorship  of  Aristides,  but  later  he  abandoned  this  opinion  of  Kihn ,  in 
his  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  appendices,  Freiburg,  1897.  For  the 
relations  between  the  Letter  and  the  Apology  of  Aristides  cf.  R.  Seeberg, 
in  Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  (1893),  v. 
239 — 243.  Kihn,  Zum  Briefe  an  Diognet,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1902), 
lxxxiv.  495 — 498.  G.  N.  Bonwetsch  has  shown  that  cc.  1 — 12  of  the 
Letter  to  Diognetus  belong  to  Llippolytus.  F.  X.  Funk,  Das  Schlußkapitel 
des  Diognetenbriefes,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1903),  Ixxxv.  638 — 639. 

§  23.     Hermias. 

Under  the  title,  «A  Mockery  of  Lleathen  Philosophers  by  the 
Philosopher  Hermias»  f'Ep/ieioü  (pdoaocpoo  diaoopfioQ  toju  £$co  <pdo- 
G(><pcov,  Irrisio  gentilium  philosophorum),  a  small  work  has  come  down 
that  sets  forth,  in  a  satirical  way,  the  contradictory  opinions  of  Greek 
philosophers  concerning  the  human  soul  (cc.  1 — 2)  and  the  funda- 
mental principles  of  the  universe  (cc.  3 — 10).  The  author  exhibits 
wit  and  ability,  but  is  superficial,  inasmuch  as  he  constantly  fails  to 
seize  or  to  realize  the  respective  cohesion  of  the  theses  of  the  philo- 
sophers. This  work  is  never  mentioned  in  Christian  antiquity,  and  in 
the  text  itself  there  are  no  clear  traces  of  its  actual  date.  However,  the 
author  does  not  belong,  as  Diels  thinks,  to  the  fifth  or  sixth  century, 
but  rather  to  the  second  or  third.  Hermias  bears  the  title  of  «philo- 
sopher» in  common  with  several  apologists  of  the  second  and  third 
centuries:  Aristides,  Justin,  Athenagoras,  and  the  pseudo-Melito.  The 
attitude  and  tendency  of  his  work,  its  polemical  bitterness  and  lively 
diction,  point,  apparently,  to  the  period  of  the  earliest  intellectual  conflict 
of  youthful  Christianity  with  Hellenic  philosophy.  Certain  indications 
that  the  writer  made  use  of  the  Cohortatio  ad  Gentiles  of  the  pseudo- 
Justin1,  do  not*  justify  the  opinion  that  the  work  was  of  a  later 
date  than  we  have  indicated. 

For  the  manuscript-tradition  cf.  Harnack ,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Lite- 
ratur, i.  782  f.     The    editio  princeps   is   that   of  J.  Oporinus ,   Basel,   1553. 

1  Compare  respectively  Irris.,  cc.  1  5,  with  Cohort.,  cc.  7  31.  In  the  latter  pas- 
sages, however,  it  seems  better  to  admit  the  use,  by  both  writers,  of  a  third  source : 
i.  e.  Psetido-Plut.,  De  placitis  phil.,  i.   7,  4. 


JO  FIRST    PERIOD.       SECOND    SECTION. 

Other  editions  are  those  of  Morelli  and  Maranus  (Gallandi,  Migne),  v.  Otto, 
Corpus  apolog.,  ix.  i — 31 ;  cf.  xl. — li.  and  §13.  The  most  recent  edition 
is  that  of  H.  Diets,  Doxographi  Graeci,  Berlin,  1879,  pp.  649 — 656,  cf. 
pp.  259  to  263.  A  German  version  by  %  Leitl  is  found  in  the  Bibl.  der 
Kirchenväter,  Kempten,   1873. 

§  24.     Minucius  Felix. 

I.  THE  DIALOGUE  «OCTAVIUS».  This  Latin  apology  for  Chris- 
tianity is  in  every  way  worthy  to  rank  with  the  preceding  Greek  works 
of  the  same  nature.  It  is  thrown  into  the  form  of  a  Dialogue  between 
the  Christian  Octavius  Januarius  and  the  heathen  Caecilius  Natalis, 
both  friends  of  the  author  Minucius  Felix,  a  Roman  lawyer  (causidicus). 
It  opens  in  a  very  lively  manner :  the  disputants  are  seated  by  the  sea 
at  Ostia,  having  chosen  Minucius  Felix  as  arbiter  of  their  controversy 
(cc.  1 — 4).  Caecilius  advocates  the  teaching  of  the  Skeptics,  yet  de- 
fends the  faith  of  his  fathers  as  the  one  source  of  Roman  greatness ; 
Christianity  is  an  unreasonable  and  immoral  illusion  (cc.  5 — 13). 
Octavius  follows  closely  the  arguments  of  Caecilius,  makes  a  drastic 
expose  of  the  follies  of  polytheism ,  and  refutes  the  usual  anti- 
Christian  calumnies  (adoration  of  the  head  of  an  ass,  of  the  genitalia 
of  the  clergy,  Thyestean  banquets,  Oedipean  incest,  atheism)  and 
closes  with  a  touching  portrait  of  the  faith  and  life  of  the  Christians 
(cc.  16 — 38).  No  arbiter's  judgment  is  needed,  as  Caecilius  admits 
his  defeat.  For  artistic  composition  and  graceful  treatment  of  the 
given  theme  none  of  the  second  or  third  century  Christian  apologies 
can  be  compared  to  the  «Octavius».  The  De  natura  deorum  of  Cicero 
was  apparently  the  author's  model.  He  certainly  made  use  of  this 
work  of  Cicero  and  of  his  De  divinatione,  likewise  of  the  De  Pro- 
videntia and  De  super stltione  of  Seneca.  A  generous  humanitarian 
tone  pervades  the  entire  work.  The  monotheistic  character  of  Chris- 
tianity is  constantly  insisted  on  (c.  18).  Its  most  important  feature 
is  the  practical  morality  it  inculcates  (c.  32,  3).  The  author  does 
not  mention  the  Christian  mysteries,  nor  does  he  make  use  of  the 
Sacred  Scriptures  (cf.  however  c.  34,  5).  At  the  same  time  we 
cannot  admit  with  Kühn  that  Minucius  furnishes  no  more  than  «an 
ethnico-philosophical  concept  of  Christianity».  His  work  is  an  ex- 
position of  the  genuine  Christian  truth,  but  executed  in  a  manner 
suitable  to  impress  the  philosophical  circles  of  heathenism. 

The  Dialogue  has  reached  us  only  through  Codex  Parisinus  1661  of 
the  ninth  century  (and  a  copy  of  the  sixteenth  century),  in  which  it  appears 
as  the  eighth  book  of  Arnobius'  Adversus  nationes.  The  first  editors  were 
F.  Sabaeus,  Rome,  1543,  and  Fr.  Ba 'Iduin,  Heidelberg,  1560.  Later  it  was 
edited  or  reprinted  by  C.  de  Muralt,  Zürich,  1836;  Migne,  PL.,  iii.  (Paris, 
1844);  J.  B.  Kayser,  Paderborn,  1863;  C.  Hahn,  Vienna,  1867  (Corpus 
script,  eccles.  lat. ,  iL);  J.  J.  Cornelissen ,  Leyden,  1882;  E.  Bährens, 
Leipzig,   1886.    The  best  of  these  editions  is  that  by  Halm.    It  is  reprinted 


§    24.       MINUCIUS    FELIX.  7  \ 

in  Bibliotheca  Ss.  Patrum,  Rome,  1901.  For  new  contributions  to  the 
textual  criticism  of  «Octavius»  cf.  Teuff el- Schwabe,  Gesch.  der  römischen 
Literatur,  5.  ed.,  pp.  931  1317,  and  J.  Vahlen,  in  Index  lect.  Berol.  per 
sem.  aest.  a  (1894),  also  in  Hermes  (1895),  xxx-  385 — 39°-  C.  Synnerberg, 
Randbemerkungen  zu  Minucius  Felix,  Berlin,  1897.  Translations  into  German 
have  been  made  by  A.  Bier inger,  Kempten,  187 1  (Bibliothek  der  Kirchen- 
väter); B.  Dombart,  Erlangen,  1875 — l876;  2.  ed.  (text  of  Halm),  1881 ; 
H.  Hagen,  Berne,  1890.  There  is  an  English  translation  by  R.  E.  Wallis,  in 
Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (Am.  ed.  1885),  iv.  173 — 198.  E.  Behr,  Der  Octavius 
des  M.  Minucius  Felix  in  seinem  Verhältnis  zu  Ciceros  Büchern  De  natura 
deorum  (Dissert,  inaug.),  Gera,  1870.  Concerning  the  models  and  «fontes»  of 
the  Dialogue  cf.  Th.  Keim,  Celsus'  Wahres  Wort,  Zürich,  1873,  pp.  151  — 168; 
G.  Lösche,  in  Jahrb.  für  prot.  Theol.  (1882),  viii.  168 — 178;  P.  de  Filice, 
£tude  sur  l'Octavius  de  Minucius  Felix  (These),  Blois,  1880.  R.  Kühn,  Der 
Octavius  des  Minucius  Felix,  eine  heidnisch-philosophische  Auffassung  vom 
Christentum,  Leipzig,  1882.  Against  Kühn  cf.  O.  Grillnbcrger ,  in  Jahrb. 
für  Philos.  u.  spekul.  Theol.  (1889),  iii.  104 — 118,  146  — 161,  260 — 269; 
B.  Seiller,  De  sermone  Minuciano  (Progr.),  Vienna,  1893.  There  is  an  ex- 
haustive bibliography  of  «Octavius»  iny.  P.  Waltzing,  Bibliographie  raisonnee 
de  Minucius  Felix,  in  Museon  beige  (1902),  vi.  216 — 261.  Minucius  Felix, 
Octavius,  in  usum  lectionum  suarum,  ed.  J.  P.  Waltzing,  Louvain,  1903. 
Octavius,  rec.  et  praefatus  est  H.  Boenig,  Leipzig,  1903.  Cf.  O.  Bollero, 
«L'Octavius»  de  M.  Minucio  Felice  e  le  sue  relazioni  con  la  coltura  classica, 
in  Rivista  filosofica,  1903;  C.  Synnerberg,  Randbemerkungen  zu  Minucius 
Felix,  Helsingfors-Berlin,  1903,  ii;  G.  Bossier,  L'Octavius  de  Minucius  Felix, 
in  La  fin  du  paganisme,  3.  ed.,  Paris,  1898,  i.  261 — 289;  F.  X.  Burger,  Über 
das  Verhältnis  des  Minucius  Felix  zu  dem  Philosophen  Seneca  (Dissert.), 
München,  1904;  G.  Thiancourt,  Les  premiers  apologistes  chretiens  ä  Rome 
et  les  traites  philosophiques  de  Ciceron,  Paris,   1904. 

2.  AUTHORSHIP  AND  DATE.  We  know  no  more  of  the  events  of 
the  author's  life.  He  tells  us  himself  (cc.  1  —4)  that  in  his  later  years 
only  had  he  come  forth  «from  deepest  obscurity  into  the  light  of  wis- 
dom and  truth».  Lactantius1  seems  to  suppose  that  Minucius  preceded 
Tertullian;  Jerome2,  on  the  contrary,  is  surely  of  the ...  opinion  that 
Tertullian  wrote  previously  to  Minucius.  There  is  indeed  a  close 
resemblance  between  the  «Octavius»  and  the  «Apologeticum»  of 
Tertullian,  written  in  197.  We  believe  with  Ebert,  Schwenke,  Reck, 
and  others  that  it  is  Tertullian  who  made  use  of  \  linucius,  and  not, 
as  earlier  writers  (and  recently  Massebieau)  have  held,  Minucius  who 
used  the  writings  of  Tertullian.  Still  less  tenable  is  the  theory  of 
Hartel  and  Wilhelm  that  we  must  suppose  a  third  source  common 
to  both,  but  no  longer  discoverable.  There  are  other  evidences  of 
the  priority  of  Minucius.  Fronto  of  Cirta,  who  died  after  175,  must 
have  been  alive,  or  at  least  a  very  well-known  personality,  at  the  time 
of  the  composition  of  «Octavius»  (cc.  9,  6;  31,  2).  A  reliable  terminus 
ad  quern  is  the  tractate  of  Cyprian  Quod  idola  dii  non  sint,  written 
perhaps  in  248,  and  in  which  the  work  of  Minucius  is  copiously  drawn 

1  Div.  inst.,  v.    I,   22;   cf.   i.    II,   55. 

2  De  viris  illustr.,  cc.   53,   58;  Ep.   70,   5. 


72  FIRST    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

upon.  The  «Octavius»  may  have  been  written  at  the  beginning  of  the 
reign  of  Commodus  (180 — 192).  There  is  no  reason  for  admitting 
with  de  Felice  and  Schanz,  an  earlier  date,  e.  g.  the  reign  of  An- 
toninus Pius.  On  the  other  hand,  Neumann  is  quite  arbitrary  when 
he  brings  down  the  date  of  composition  to  the  reign  of  Philippus 
Arabs  (244 — 249);  still  more  so  is  Schultze  when  he  attributes  it  to 
the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century.  The  use  of  the  work  by 
Cyprian  is  sufficient  to  exclude  both  of  these  hypotheses. 

For  the  date  of  composition  cf.  A.  Ebert,  in  Abhandlungen  der  phil.- 
hist.  Klasse  der  kgl.  sächs.  Gesellsch.  der  Wissensch.  (1870),  v.  319 — 420; 
W.  Hartel,  in  Zeitschr.  für  die  Österreich.  Gymnasien  (1869),  xx.  348 — 368; 
V.  Schnitze,  in  Jahrb.  für  prot.  Theol.  (1881),  vii.  485 — 506-  P.  Schwenke, 
ib.  (1883),  ix.  263—294;  F.  X.  Reck,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1886),  lxviii. 
64—114;  Fr.  Wilhelm,  in  Breslauer  philolog.  Abhandlungen  (1887),  ii.  1; 
M.  L.  Massebieau,  in  Revue  de  l'hist.  des  religions  (1887),  xv.  316 — 346; 
K.  J.  Neumann j  Der  römische  Staat  und  die  allgemeine  Kirche,  Leipzig, 
1890,  i.  241  ff.  250  fr.;  M.  Schanz,  in  Rhein.  Museum  für  Philol.,  new  series 
(1895),  L.  114 — 136;  E.  Norden,  in  Index  lect.  Gryphiswald.  per  sem.  aest. 
a.  1897  ;  H.  Boenig,  in  a  programme  of  the  Gymnasium  of  Königsberg,  1897. 

3.  THE  TREATISE  «DE  FATO».  Jerome  was  acquainted  with  a 
work  current  under  the  name  of  Minucius,  entitled  De  fato  vel  contra 
mathematicos.  He  doubted  its  authenticity  because  of  the  diversity 
of  style1.  It  is  true  that  in  the  «Octavius»  Minucius  does  promise 
(c.  36,  2)  a  work  De  fato.  Possibly  his  own  words  caused  an 
homonymous  work   of  some  other  writer   to  be   fathered  upon  him. 

THIRD  SECTION. 

THE  HERETICAL  LITERATURE  OF  THE  SECOND  CENTURY 
AND  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  APOCRYPHA. 

§  25.     Gnostic  Literature. 

I.  INTRODUCTION.  The  apologetic  literature  was  one  result  of 
the  conflict  between  heathenism  and  Christianity.  But  even  while 
the  Apostles  lived,  the  Church  came  in  contact  with  another  formi- 
dable enemy  known  as  heresy.  It  did  not  dispute  with  her  the 
right  to  exist,  but  it  threatened  the  purity  and  integrity  of  her  apo- 
stolic faith.  It  is  of  importance,  therefore,  that  a  brief  summary  of 
the  literary  labours  of  heretics  should  precede  an  account  of  the  anti- 
heretical  literature. 

The  most  influential  of  the  primitive  heresies  was  Gnosticism. 
It  aimed  at  undermining  the  entire  structure  of  Christian  faith,  since, 
in  spite  of  the  contradictions  of  its  multiform  systems,  it  was  based 
on  the  hypothesis  of  a  dual  principle  and  rejected  the  doctrine  of 
creation.    Nevertheless,  it  made  much  headway  in  the  East  and  West, 

1  lb. 


§    25.       GNOSTIC    LITERATURE.  73 

especially  among  the  cultured  classes,  and  brought  forth  a  literature 
of  more  than  ordinary  variety  and  richness.  With  the  exception  of 
a  few  works  preserved,  for  the  most  part,  in  Coptic,  this  literature 
has  perished,  and  is  known  to  us  only  from  the  few  fragments  that 
the  ecclesiastical  writers  inserted  in  their  polemical  writings  for  the 
purpose  of  confuting  their  heretical  opponents. 

The  principal  authorities  for  the  study  of  Gnosticism  and  its  literature 
are  the  Adversus  haereses  of  Irenaeus ,  the  Philosophumena  of  Hippolytus, 
the  Pa?iarion  or  Haereses  of  Epiphanius ,  and  the  Liber  de  haeresibus  of 
Philastrius.  For  critical  researches  on  the  sources  of  these  and  similar 
works  cf.  R.  A.  Lipsius,  Zur  Quellenkritik  des  Epiphanios,  Vienna,  1865 ; 
Die  Quellen  der  ältesten  Ketzergeschichte  neu  untersucht,  Leipzig,  1875. 
Ad.  Harnack,  7mx  Quellenkritik  der  Geschichte  des  Gnostizismus,  Leipzig, 
1873;  Zur  Quellenkritik  der  Gesch.  des  Gnostizismus,  in  Zeitschr.  für  die 
histor.  Theol.  (1874),  xliv.  143 — 226.  A.  Hilgenfeld,  Die  Ketzergeschichte 
des  Urchristentums  urkundlich  dargestellt,  Leipzig,  1884;  Judentum  und 
Judenchristentum,  Leipzig,  1886.  J.  Kunze,  De  historiae  gnosticismi  fon- 
tibus  novae  quaestiones  criticae,  Leipzig,  1894.  Collections  of  Gnostic 
fragments  are  found  in  J.  E.  Grabe,  Spicilegium  Ss.  Patrum  ut  et  haereti- 
corum  saec.  p.  Chr.  n.  i.  ii.  et  iii.,  Oxford,  1698 — 1699;  2.  ed.  1714,  2  voll., 
passim ;  in  R.  Massuet's  edition  of  the  Adversus  haereses  of  Irenaeus,  Paris, 
1710,  pp.  349 — 376  [Migne,  PG.,  vii.  1263  — 1322);  in  A.  Stieren' s  edition 
of  Irenaeus,  Leipzig,  1848 — 1853,  i.  899 — 971;  in  Hilgenfeld,  Die  Ketzer- 
geschichte des  Urchristentums,  passim.  For  the  most  complete  index  of 
Gnostic  writers  and  writings  cf.  Ad.  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur, 
i.  143 — 205;  ii.  1,  289 — 311,  533 — 541;  R.  Liechtenhahn,  Untersuchungen 
zur  koptisch- gnostischen  Literatur,  in  Zeitschr.  für  wissenschaftl.  Theol. 
(1901),  xliv.  236—252;  Id.,  On  the  apocryphal  literature  of  the  Gnostics, 
in  Zeitschr.  für  neutestamentl.  Wissensch.  (1902),  iii.  222 — 237  ;  E.  de  Faye, 
Introduction  ä  l'etude  du  gnosticisme  au  2e  et  3e  siecle,  in  Revue  de  l'histoire 
des  religions  (1902),  and  Paris,   1903. 

2.  BASILIDES  AND  ISIDORUS.  It  would  seem  that  the  earliest 
chiefs  of  the  Gnostic  sects,  Dositheus,  Simon  Magus,  Cleobius,  Men- 
ander,  Cerinthus,  Nicolaus  (?),  Satornilus,  left  no  writings,  though 
at  an  early  date  certain  works  were  attributed  to  them  by  their 
followers.  Origen  *  is  aware  of  pretended  «books  of  Dositheus» ; 
Hippolytus2  bases  his  account  of  the  teachings  of  Simon  Magus  on 
a  supposed  «Great  revelation»  (dnofamq pteydXr})  current,  we  may  sup- 
pose, under  the  name  of  Simon.  Other  ecclesiastical  writers  were  of 
the  same  view.  Basilides,  who  taught  at  Alexandria  about  120—140, 
wrote  a  Gospel,  a  Commentary  on  the  same,  also  Psalms  or  Canticles 
(Odes).  His  Gospel  is  often  mentioned  by  name3,  first  by  Origen, 
but  not  analysed  or  described.  It  was  probably  no  more  than  a  com- 
pilation made  for  his  own  purposes  from  the  four  Gospels.  According 
to  Agrippa  Castor  the  Commentary  of  Basilides  consisted  of  twenty- 
four  books4.  Some  fragments  of  it  are  quoted  by  Clement  of  Alexandria, 

1  Comm.  in  Joan.  xiii.  27:  ßtßkouq  tou  AoaSioo.  2  Philos.,  vi.   7 — 20;  al. 

3  Orig.,  Horn.    1   in  Lucam.  4  Ens.,  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.   7,   7. 


74  FIRST    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

Origen,  and  the  author  of  the  Acta  Archelai  et  Manetis.  Concerning 
the  Psalms  or  Odes  we  merely  know  the  fact  that  they  once  existed 1. 
The  nature  of  teachings  of  Basilides  is  variously  represented  by  an- 
cient writers ;  the  Basilides  of  Irenaeus 2  seems  to  be  a  dualist  and 
an  emanationist,  while,  according  to  Hippolytus 3,  he  seems  to  be  an 
evolutionist  and  a  pantheist.  In  order  to  reconcile  these  descriptions 
of  the  Basilidian  system  it  is  customary  to  admit  two  phases  of  the 
same:  a  primitive  form  and  a  later  transformation.  It  still  remains 
doubtful  whether  the  prior  stage  of  the  heresy  were  that  set  forth 
by  Irenaeus  or  the  one  described  by  Hippolytus.  Salmon  and 
Stähelin  have  recently  maintained  that,  in  his  account  of  Basilides, 
Hippolytus  was  deceived,  as  he  was  on  other  occasions  (§  54,  3), 
by  Gnostic  forgeries ;  but  this  hypothesis  offers  too  violent  a  solution 
of  the  problem.  Isidore,  «legitimate  son  and  disciple»  of  Basilides 4, 
left  at  least  three  works.  Their  titles,  according  to  Clement  of 
Alexandria ,  were :  On  an  adherent  soul 5  (nep\  7rpoo<püooQ  fiuyrJQ ; 
Isidore  distinguished  between  a  rational  and  an  «appended»  soul); 
Ethica  frjdcxdj6,  perhaps  identical  with  the  Tzapaivtrixd  that  Epi- 
phanius  attributes  to  him7,  and  an  Exposition  of  the  prophet  Parchor8 
fi$yp}Ttxä  too  7[pO(prjToo  JJapycbp).  Parchor  was  one  of  the  prophets 
invented  by  Basilides  and  invoked  as  authorities.  Agrippa  Castor 
(1.  c.)  says  that  he  deliberately  chose  barbarian  names  for  them. 

The  fragments  of  the  works  of  Basilides  and  Isidore  are  collected  in 
Grabe  (see  p.  73,  Oxford,  1699),  ii.  35—43,  64 — 68;  Massuet  (see  p.  73) 
pp.  349  ff. ,  351  if.;  Stieren  1.  c. ,  pp.  901  ff. ,  907  ff.;  Hilgenfeld  1.  c, 
pp.  207  ff. ;  213  ff.  They  have  received  special  attention  from  the  latter 
and  from  Th.  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  (1888  — 1889), 
i-  763 — 774.  J.  Kennedy,  Buddhist  Gnosticism.  The  System  of  Basilides, 
London,   1902.     Journal  of  the  Royal  Asiatic  Society. 

3.  THE  OPHITES  OR  «GNOSTICS».  The  Ophites,  or  «Brethren  of 
the  Serpent»,  were  the  first  to  take  the  name  of  Gnostics  (jvcoanxoi). 
Even  in  the  second  century  they  had  branched  out  quite  extensively. 
Some  were  frankly  antinomian  in  their  principles,  committed  the 
gravest  excesses,  and  indulged  in  abominable  orgies,  while  others 
embraced,  theoretically  at  least,  Encratite  doctrines.  The  ancient  heresio- 
logists  are  unanimous  in  declaring  that  several  of  these  sects  had  them- 
selves composed,  or  used  and  esteemed  highly,  very  many  works, 
chiefly  apocryphal,  but  current  under  the  name  of  biblical  characters. 
St.  Irenaeus  made  use  of  several  such  writings  for  his  account  of 
ancient  heresies ;  but  he  mentions  the  name  of  only  one  —  the  Gospel 
of  Judas,  a  book  of  the  Cainites9.    Hippolytus  is  wont  to  indicate  more 

1  Fragm.   Murat.,   c.  fin. ;   Orig.  in  Job  xxi.    1 1   sq. 

2  Adv.  haer.,  i.   24,   3 — 7,   etc.  3  Philos.,  vii.   20 — 27  ;   al. 

4  Ib.,  vii.   20.  5   Cletn.  AL,  Strom.,  ii.   20,    113.  6  Ib.,  iii.    1,   2. 

7  Haer.,   32,   3.  8  Clem.  Al.  1.  c.,  vi.  6,   53. 

9  Adv.  haer.,  i.  31,    1. 


§    25.       GNOSTIC    LITERATURE.  75 

particularly  the  sources  of  his  narrative,  and  Epiphanius  has  preserved 
the  titles  of  a  long  series  of  Ophitic  writings.  In  recent  times  some 
Ophitic  works  of  Encratite  tendencies  have  been  discovered  in  Coptic 
translations.  The  Pistis  Sophia,  edited  in  185 1  by  Schwartze  and 
Petermann  from  a  fifth  or  sixth  century  Coptic  codex  (Askewianus) 
in  the  British  Museum,  is  a  specimen  of  such  heretical  literature.  It 
relates,  in  the  form  of  a  conversation  between  the  risen  Saviour  and 
his  male  and  female  disciples,  among  whom  Mary  Magdalen  is  pro- 
minent, the  fall  and  the  redemption  of  Pistis  Sophia,  a  being  from 
the  world  of  the  ^Eons.  The  vicissitudes  of  her  story  prefigure  the 
way  of  purification  for  mankind  through  penance.  Numerous  psalms 
(odes)  are  scattered  through  the  text;  apart  from  five  «Solomonic» 
psalms,  that  are  placed  on  a  level  with  the  psalms  of  David,  they 
seem  to  be  the  work  of  the  author.  In  its  present  form  the  Pistis 
Sophia  is  made  up  of  four  books,  and  was  very  probably  put 
together  in  the  second  half  of  the  third  century,  in  Egypt.  It  was 
formerly  erroneously  attributed  to  Valentine  (see  p.  j6)  or  to  some 
later  member  of  his  school.  At  present  the  first  three  books  are 
by  many  identified  with  the  «Little  Questions  of  Mary»  (epwrrjoetQ 
Mapiaq  pcxpaij  that  Epiphanius  quotes1  as  a  book  of  the  «Gnostics»; 
the  fourth  book  is  apparently  of  an  earlier  date.  A  Coptic  papyrus- 
codex  of  Oxford  (Brucianus),  belonging  to  the  fifth  or  sixth  century, 
has  saved  from  loss  two  Ophite  works.  Their  content  was  made  known 
in  1 89 1  by  Amelineau,  and  in  1892  by  Schmidt.  In  the  larger  one 
our  Lord  expounds  to  his  male  and  female  disciple  certain  cosmogonic 
speculations  and  gives  them  theologico-practical  instructions.  In  the 
smaller  one  he  illustrates  the  origin  and  evolution  of  the  world.  The 
text  of  both  codices,  however,  is  disfigured  by  gaps  and  breaks. 
According  to  Schmidt,  the  larger  codex  was  written  among  the 
Severians 2,  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  and  is  identical 
with  the  two  «Books  of  Jeu»  cited  in  Pistis  Sophia3.  The  smaller 
one  appears  to  be  of  very  remote  antiquity,  and  is  held  by  Schmidt 
to  be  a  book  of  the  Sethians  or  Archontici4  written  about  the 
middle  of  the  second  century.  His  arguments,  however,  are  open  to 
objections.  —  A  Coptic  papyrus  of  the  fifth  (?)  century,  acquired  in  1896 
for  the  Egyptian  Museum  in  Berlin,  includes  three  fragments  of  Gnostic 
origin.  They  are,  according  to  the  provisory  description  of  Schmidt: 
a  «Gospel  according  to  Mary»  (zuajyihov  xazu.  Map  tap,  with  the  sub- 
title: äxoxpu<pov  'Icodwoo,  containing  mostly  revelations  to  John);  a 
«Wisdom  of  Jesus  Christ»  (ooipia  ^Iqaou  Xpiaroo ,  revelations  of  our 
Lord  after  His  death);  and  an  «Act  of  Peter»  (Tzpagig  IHrpoo,  a 
miraculous   healing   of  Peter's    own    daughter).      St.    Irenaeus    seems 


Haer.,   26,   8.  2  Epiph.,  Haer.,  45. 

Ed.  Schwartze  and  Petermann,  p.   245  sq.,   354. 

Epiph.,  1.   c,   39 — 40. 


y6  FIRST    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

to  have  known  and  used  the  «Gospel  according  to  Mary»,  in  his 
description  of  the  Barbelo-Gnostics1;  a  clearer  knowledge  will  be  pos- 
sible only  when  the  text  is  published. 

Pistis  Sophia.  Opus  gnosticum  Valentino  adiudicatum  e  codice  manu- 
scripto  Coptico  Londinensi  descripsit  et  latine  vertit  M.  G.  Schwartze.  Edidit 
y.  IT.  Petermann,  Berlin,  1851.  K.  R.  Köstlin,  Das  gnostische  System  des 
Buches  Pistis  Sophia,  in  Theol.  Jahrbücher  (1854),  xiii.  1 — 104,  137 — 196. 
Ad.  Harnack,  Über  das  gnostische  Buch  Pistis  Sophia,  in  Texte  und  Unter- 
suchungen (1891),  vii.  2,  1 — 114.  Cf.  also  the  writings  of  Schmidt  (mentioned 
below)  on  the  Papyrus  Brucianus.  The  edition  and  translation  of  this  codex 
by  Amdineati  (Paris,  1891)  was  not  a  success;  the  same  may  be  said  of 
his  Comptes-rendus  concerning  the  contents  of  the  codex.  E.  Andersson, 
Compte-rendu  critique:  Amelineau:  Ilircic  Socpta,  ouvrage  gnostique  de 
Valentin,  traduit  du  copte  en  francais,  in  Sphinx,   1904,  pp.   237 — 253. 

The  editio  princeps  is,  we  may  remark,  that  of  C.  Schmidt,  Gnostische 
Schriften  in  koptischer  Sprache,  aus  dem  codex  Brucianus  herausgegeben, 
übersetzt  und  bearbeitet  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  viii.  1  —  2),  Leipzig,  1892. 
Cf.  Schmidt,  in  Zeitschr.  für  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1894),  xxxvii.  555 — 585. 

For  the  Berlin  papyrus  cf.  C.  Schmidt,  Ein  vorirenäisches  gnostisches 
Originalwerk  in  koptischer  Sprache ,  in  Sitzungsberichte  der  kgl.  preuß. 
Akad.  der  Wissensch.,  Berlin,   1896,  pp.  839—847. 

C.  Schmidt,  Koptisch-gnostische  Schriften :  I.  Die  Pistis  Sophia ;  II.  Die 
beiden  Bücher  des  Jeu;  III.  Unbekanntes  altgnostisches  Werk,  Berlin,  1905. 
(Griechisch-christliche  Schriftsteller.)  For  an  English  translation  of  Pistis 
Sophia,  made  from  the  German  of  C.  Schmidt,  see  E.  R.  S.  Mead,  Frag- 
ments of  a  Faith  Forgotten,  London  and  Benares,  1900,  pp.  459 — 479; 
cf.  ib.  pp.  605 — 630,  a  full  bibliography  of  works  on  Gnosticism. 

4.  CARPOCRATIANS.  —  The  followers  of  Carpocrates  of  Alexandria 2 
consigned  to  various  works  their  peculiar  «Gnosis»  which  was  closely 
related  to  that  of  the  antinomian  group  of  the  Ophites.  Clement  of 
Alexandria  furnishes  some  particulars  concerning  one  of  these  works  3. 
He  tells  us  that  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century  Epiphanes, 
son  of  Carpocrates,  though  only  seventeen  years  of  age,  wrote  a  work 
«On  justice»  (nepi  dtxatoaovrjQ)  in  which,  as  is  evident  from  the  cita- 
tions of  Clement,  he  advocated  a  thorough  communism,  even  of  women. 

U.  Benigni,  I  socialisti  alessandrini  del  II.  secolo,  in  Bessarione  (1896 
to  1897),  i.  597  —  601. 

5.  VALENTINE  AND  VALENTINIANS.  —  Valentine  is  held  to  be  the 
most  intellectual  champion  of  the  hellenizing  Gnosis,  which  followed 
in  the  footsteps  of  Plato  and  taught  a  parallelism  between  the  ideal 
world  above  (izX-qpcopa)  and  the  lower  world  of  phenomena  (xevcopa, 
borspiqpa).  The  connecting  link  is  the  xdrco  ooipia  or  Achamoth, 
a  being  fallen  from  the  uvea  oocpia ,  last  of  the  ^Eons,  into  the 
visible  world.  At  the  moment  of  his  baptism  the  yEon  Soter  (or  Jesus) 
descended  upon  the  Christ  who  had  been  promised  and  sent  by  the 
Demiurge  or  World- Creator.    Valentine  was  an  Egyptian  and  had  been 

1  Adv.  haer.,  i.   29.  2  Ib.,  i.   25,  45.  3  Strom.,  iii.   2,   5 — 9. 


§    25.       GNOSTIC    LITERATURE.  77 

initiated  into  Greek  science  at  Alexandria.  From  135  to  160  (approxima- 
tely) he  sojourned  at  Rome,  and  there  took  place  his  final  apostasy 
from  the  Church.  Wounded  in  his  pride  at  being  an  unsuccessful  can- 
didate for  the  papacy,  in  revenge  he  took  up  the  role  of  an  arch- 
heretic.  The  date  of  his  death  is  uncertain.  Clement  of  Alexandria  has 
preserved  some  fragments  of  his  Letters  and  Homilies i.  Hippolytus  2 
has  saved  a  remnant  of  the  Psalms  of  Valentine 3.  The  Sophia 
Valentini  in  Tertullian 4  is  not  a  work  of  this  Gnostic,  but  rather  his 
iEon  Sophia.  According  to  Irenaeus,  the  Valentinians  made  use  of  a 
« Gospel  of  Truth » ,  which  had  nothing  in  common  with  the  canonical 
Gospels5.  —  During  his  life,  apparently,  the  school  of  Valentine 
divided  into  two  branches:  known  respectively  as  the  Italian  or 
Western  and  the  Eastern  branch.  The  Italici  declared  the  body  of 
the  Saviour  to  be  of  a  psychic  character,  while  the  Easterns  main- 
tained that  is  was  pneumatic.  The  principal  writers  of  the  Italian 
school  were  Heracleon  and  Ptolemy,  both  personal  disciples  of  Valen- 
tine. Heracleon  composed  a  Commentary  on  St.  John,  from  which 
Origen,  in  his  Commentary  on  that  evangelist,  has  taken  about  fifty 
citations,  partly  verbal  and  partly  paraphrased.  Two  other  exegetical 
passages  of  Heracleon  are  cited  by  Clement  of  Alexandria6.  As  a  rule 
the  exegesis  of  Heracleon  is  not  only  very  arbitrary,  but  also  absurd. 
Some  extracts  from  Ptolemy  are  found  in  Irenaeus7,  including  an  ex- 
position of  the  prologue  of  the  Gospel  of  John.  We  owe  to  Epi- 
phanius  8  the  preservation  of  the  complete  text  of  a  Letter  of  Ptolemy 
to  Flora,  a  Christian  lady,  in  which  he  undertakes  to  prove  that  the 
Law  of  the  Old  Testament  was  the  work  not  of  the  Supreme  God, 
but  of  the  World-Creator  or  Demiurge.  The  Syriac  fragment  of  a 
Letter  of  St.  Irenaeus  to  Pope  Victor  exhibits  a  certain  Florinus, 
at  one  time  a  priest  of  the  Roman  Church,  in  the  character  of  a 
Christian  writer  (cf.  §  34,  4).  The  chief  literary  remains  of  the 
Eastern  branch  of  the  Valentinians  are  the  Excerpta  ex  scriptis 
Theodoti :  ix  rcov  Geodoroo  xai  ztjq  ävaroXtxrjq  xaXoüfjteuTjQ  dtdaaxaXiao, 
xarä  robg  Odakevrivoo  ypovoüQ  kmzofxaL  They  have  come  down 
under  the  name  of  Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  are  an  account  of 
the  teachings  of  the  Oriental  Valentinians,  together  with  excerpts 
from  the  writings  of  an  otherwise  unknown  Theodotus  and  some 
anonymous  Valentinians. 

The   fragments   of  the   writings   of  Valentine   may  be   seen   in   Grabe 
1.  c,  ii.  43 — 58;  Massuet  1.  c,  pp.  352 — 355;  Stieren  1.  c,  pp.  909 — 916; 

1  Strom.,  ii.  8,  36;   iv.    13,  89  ff. ;   al.  2  Philos.,  vi.  37. 

3   Teri.,  De  carne  Christi,   c.    17,   20;   al.  4  Adv.  Valent.,   c.   2. 

5  Veritatis  evangelium,    in  nihilo    conveniens    apostolorum   evangeliis:    Adv.  haer., 
iii.   11,  9. 

6  Strom.,  iv.  9,    70  ff. ;  Eclog.  proph.,   c.   25.  7  Adv.  haer.,  i.    1—8,   5. 
8  Haer.,   33,   5—7. 


J8  FIRST    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

Hilgenfeld  1.  c,  pp.  292  —  307.  The  fragments  of  Heracleon  are  in  Grabe, 
pp.  80 — 117,  236;  Massuet,  pp.  362 — 376;  Stieren,  pp.  936 — 971 ;  Hilgenfeld, 
pp.  472 — 505;  cf.  A.  E.  Brooke,  The  Fragments  of  Heracleon  (Texts  and 
Studies,  i.  4),  Cambridge,  1891.  On  Heracleon  see  G.  Salmon,  in  Diet,  of 
Christian  Biography,  London,  1880,  ii.  897 — 900.  The  Letter  of  Ptolemy  to 
Flora  is  in  Grabe,  pp.  68—80;  Massuet,  pp.  357 — 361 ;  Stieren,  pp.  922 — 936 ; 
Hilgenfeld,  in  Zeitschr.  für  Wissenschaft!.  Theol.  (1881),  xxiv.  214—230;  cf. 
Hilgenfeld ,  Die  Ketzergesch.  des  Urchristentums,  p.  346,  note  580.  An 
unsuccessful  attempt  was  made  by  Stieren  to  disprove  the  authenticity  and 
the  unity  of  the  Letter  of  Ptolemy  to  Flora.  A.  Stieren,  De  Ptolemaei  Valen- 
tiniani  ad  Floram  epistola,  Part.  I,  Jenae,  1843.  Cf.  Ad.  Harnack ,  Der 
Brief  des  Ptolemäus  an  die  Flora.  Eine  relig.  Kritik  am  Pentateuch  im 
2.  Jahrhundert,  in  Sitzungsberichte  der  kgl.  preuß.  Akad.  der  Wissensch., 
Berlin,  1902,  pp.  507 — '545-  G.  Heinrici,  Die  valentinianische  Gnosis  und 
die  Heilige  Schrift,  Berlin,  1871;  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons, 
i.  718 — 763:  «Der  Schriftgebrauch  in  der  Schule  Valentins»  ;  cf.  ii.  953 — 961; 
F.  Tonn,  Valentinianismen,  historie  og  laere,  Copenhagen,  1901 ;  G.  Mer- 
cati,  Note  di  litteratura  biblica  e  cristiana  antica  (Studi  e  Testi,  Rome, 
1901),  v.  88  sq.  In  this  work  is  cited  from  a  certain  Anthimus  a  passage 
of  an  otherwise  unknown  work  of  Valentine  (/Trspt  xuiv  xpiwv  yusziov). 

6.  BARDESANES  AND  HARMONIUS.  According  to  Oriental  writers 
the  Syrian  Bardesanes  (Bar  Daisan)  was  born  of  noble  parents  at 
Edessa,  July  11.,  154,  proclaimed  himself  founder  of  a  new  religion 
180 — 190,  fled  to  Armenia  in  216  or  217,  after  the  conquest  of 
Edessa  by  Caracalla,  returned  later  to  his  native  land  and  died  there 
222 — 223.  He  was  originally  a  Valentinian  of  the  Eastern  type, 
but  soon  developed  a  religious  system  of  his  own  that  is  rightly 
looked  on  as  a  foreshadowing  of  Manichaeism.  Certain  hymns  of 
Ephraem  Syrus  show  that  Bardesanes  devoted  himself  particularly 
to  astrological  and  cosmogonic  speculations 1,  and  that  he  maintained 
against  Marcion  (see  p.  79)  the  unity  of  God ;  while  at  the  same  time 
he  introduced  a  plurality  of  gods.  His  son  Harmonius,  according  to 
Sozomen2,  added  to  the  teachings  of  his  father  the  opinions  of 
Greek  philosophers  concerning  the  soul,  the  origin  and  end  of  the 
body,  and  the  second  birth.  Ephraem  Syrus  relates 3  that  Bardesanes 
wrote  150  Psalms  and  composed  the  melodies  for  the  same,  but 
Sozomen  (1.  c.)  says  that  Harmonius  was  the  parent  of  Syriac  hymno- 
logy.  Probably  the  latter  collected  and  edited  his  father's  poetical 
works,  and  added  thereto  something  of  his  own.  It  is  possible  that 
some  fragments  of  the  Psalms  of  Bardesanes  are  yet  to  be  seen  in 
the  poetical  remnants  of  the  apocryphal  «Acts  of  Saint  Thomas» 
(cf.  §  30,  8).  Polemical  and  apologetic  works  of  Bardesanes  were 
known  to  Eusebius,  Epiphanius,  and  Theodoret4.  The  polemical 
works  were  dialogues,  written  against  Marcion,  and  were  translated 
from  Syriac  into  Greek.  The  dialogue  «On  (or  Against)  Fate»  (nepi 
or  xaza    sijuapjuiviqgj  is    mentioned  by   the    three  Greek   writers  just 

1  Serm.   adv.  haer.,    I  —  56.  2  Hist,  eccl.,   iii.    16.  3  L.   c,   sermo    53. 

4  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.  30.    Epiph.,  Haer.,  56.  1.    Theodor.,  Haeret.  fab.  comp.  i.  22. 


§    25.       GNOSTIC    LITERATURE.  79 

quoted ;  Eusebius  took  from  it  *  two  long  passages.  It  is  yet  ex- 
tant in  Syriac  under  the  title  «Book  of  the  Laws  of  the  Countries». 
In  this  work  Bardesanes,  the  chief  interlocutor,  proves  that  the 
peculiar  characters  of  men  are  not  affected  by  the  position  of  the 
stars  at  their  birth,  since  various  countries  have  the  same  laws, 
customs,  and  usages.  However,  the  dialogue  does  not  pretend  to  be 
written  by  Bardesanes,  but  by  his  disciple  Philip.  In  later  Oriental 
works  we  meet  mention  of  other  books  of  Bardesanes.  Moses  of 
Chorene2  attributes  to  him  a  history  of  the  kings  of  Armenia.  Ibn 
Abi  Jakub,  in  his  literary  history  known  as  «Fihrist»,  attributes  to 
Bardesanes  a  work  on  light  and  darkness ,  another  on  the  spiritual 
nature  of  truth,  and  a  third  on  the  movable  and  the  immovable. 

A.  Merx,  Bardesanes  von  Edessa,  nebst  einer  Untersuchung  über  das 
Verhältnis  der  clementinischen  Rekognitionen  zu  dem  Buche  der  Gesetze 
der  Länder,  Halle,  1863.  A.  Hilgenfeld,  Bardesanes,  der  letzte  Gnostiker, 
Leipzig,  1864.  Cf.  also  the  articles  of  F.  J.  A.  Hort ,  in  the  Dictionary 
of  Christ.  Biography,  i.  250 — 260,  of  J.  M.  Schönfelder,  in  the  Kirchen- 
lexikon of  Wetzer  and  Weite,  2.  ed.,  i.  1995 — 2002,  and  of  G.  Krüger,  in 
the  Realenzykl.  für  prot.  Theol.  und  Kirche,  ii.  400 — 403.  For  the  «Book 
of  the  Laws  of  Countries»  (Syriac  and  English),  cf.  W.  Cureton,  Spicilegium 
Syriacum,  Lond.,  1855,  pp.  1  —  21,  21 — 34.  There  is  a  German  translation 
in  Merx  1.  c,  pp.  25 — 55.  It  has  also  been  translated  from  Syriac  into 
French  by  F.  Nan,  Bardesanes,  astrologue,  Le  livre  des  lois  des  pays, 
Paris,   1899. 

7.  MARCION  AND  Apelles.  Marcion  was  the  son  of  a  bishop  of 
Sinope  in  Pontus.  About  the  year  140  he  appeared  in  Rome  as  a 
wealthy  navigator.  Though  he  had  been  excommunicated  by  his  father 
for  licentious  conduct,  he  managed  to  secure  a  reception  among  the 
Christians  of  that  city.  A  few  years  later  (about  144),  he  was  no 
longer  in  communion  with  the  authorities  of  the  Roman  church,  and 
was  bent  on  founding  a  church  under  his  own  auspices.  Owing  to 
his  success  in  this  undertaking,  the  Pontic  skipper  affected  both  his 
contemporaries  and  posterity  more  profoundly  than  any  heresiarch  of 
the  second  century.  Beginning  with  a  strict  adherence  to  the  Syrian 
Gnostic  Cerdon,  then  resident  at  Rome,  he  excogitated  a  doctrinal 
system  based  upon  the  irreconcilability  of  justice  and  grace,  the  law 
and  the  gospel,  Judaism  and  Christianity.  Because  of  this  irrecon- 
cilable antithesis,  two  principles  must  be  admitted,  both  eternal  and 
uncreated,  a  good  God  and  a  just  but  wicked  God;  the  latter  is 
the  Creator  of  this  world3.  Moreover,  not  only  should  we  reject 
the  Old  Testament  as  promulgated  by  the  just  and  wicked  God, 
but  we  must  look  on  the  New  Testament  as  corrupted  by  the 
primitive  apostles,  who  interpolated  it  with  their  Jewish  ideas.  Only 
Paul,  the  enemy  of  Judaism,  and  his  disciple  Luke,  were  faithful 
interpreters   of  the   teachings   of  the  Lord.     Consequently,    Marcion 

1  Praep.  evang.,  vi.    10.  2  Hist.  Arm  ,  ii.  66.  ?   TerL,  Adv.  Marc,  i.  6. 


80  FIRST    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

gave  to  his  disciples  a  new  Sacred  Scripture  in  two  parts:  an 
ebayyifaov  and  an  äTioaToXtxov.  This  Marcionite  «Evangelium»  was 
a  mutilated  and  variously  disfigured  production.  The  «Apostolicum» 
included  ten  manipulated  letters  of  St.  Paul:  Galatians,  First  and  Second 
Corinthians,  Romans,  First  and  Second  Thessalonians,  Laodiceans  == 
Ephesians,  Colossians,  Philippians,  and  Philemon.  With  the  aid  of 
several  opponents  of  Marcion  it  is  possible  to  reconstruct  in  large 
measure  the  original  text  of  this  Marcionite  Bible1,  which  enjoyed 
canonical  authority  among  the  followers  of  the  sect.  Ephraem  Syrus 
is  witness  to  a  Syriac  version  of  it;  by  the  time  of  Tertullian  it  had 
already  been  frequently  «reformed»  2.  To  justify  his  recension  of  the 
Bible,  Marcion  composed  a  large  work  known  as  Antitheses  (ävu- 
fteoeLQ)  in  which  he  arranged,  in  parallel  columns,  sentences  of  the 
Old  and  the  New  Testament,  and  from  their  pretended  antilogies  con- 
cluded that  the  two  component  parts  of  the  Bible  of  the  Church  were 
irreconcilable.  «Hae  sunt»,  says  Tertullian,  «antitheses  Marcionis,  id 
est  contrariae  oppositiones ,  quae  conantur  discordiam  evangelii  cum 
lege  committere,  ut  ex  diversitate  sententiarum  instrumenti  diversi- 
tatem  quoque  argumententur  deorum»  3.  According  to  other  state- 
ments of  Tertullian  and  of  Ephraem  Syrus  the  work  of  Marcion  con- 
tained not  only  an  exposition  of  the  principles  of  Marcionitic  Chris- 
tianity, but  also  a  more  or  less  detailed  commentary  on  his  own 
Bible.  It  seems  that  Marcion  discussed  in  a  Letter  the  reason  of 
his  abandonment  of  the  Church4.  —  Among  his  disciples  Apelles 
was  prominent  as  a  writer.  He  turned  from  the  dualism  of  Marcion 
to  a  certain  monism,  maintaining  that  the  World-Creator  was  himself 
created  by  the  good  God.  In  his  «Syllogisms»  (aoXXoyiöfxoi)  he 
undertook  to  prove  that  in  the  books  of  Moses  there  was  nothing 
but  lies;  hence  they  could  not  have  God  as  their  author.  It  was 
an  extensive  work,  as  may  be  imagined  from  the  fact  that  the 
criticism  of  the  biblical  account  of  the  fall  of  the  first  man  was 
found  in  its  thirty-eighth  book5.  In  his  «Manifestations»  (<pavz- 
pwoeiQ)  Apelles  described  the  pretended  revelations  of  Philumena,  a 
Roman  female  visionary6.  The  «Gospel  of  Apelles»  first  mentioned 
by  Jerome7  was  probably  nothing  more  than  a  later  elaboration  or 
a  new  recension  of  the  Gospel  of  Marcion. 

A.  Hilgenfeld,  Die  Ketzergeschichte  des  Urchristentums,  Leipzig,  1884, 
pp.  316 — 341:  «Cerdon  und  Marcion»;  pp.  522 — 543:  «Marcion  und  Ap- 
pelles».  A.  Harnack,  De  Appellis  gnosi  monarchica,  Leipzig,  1874.  H.U. 
Meyboom,  Marcion  en    de  Marcionieten,  Leyden,   1888.     For  earlier   tenta- 

1  Especially  Tert.,  1.  c,  v.  Efiiph.,  Haer.,  42,  and  the  author  of  Dialog.  Adamantii 
de  recta  in  Deum  fide. 

2  Tert.,  1.  c,  iv.   5  ;   cf.  De  praescr.  haeret.,   c.  42.  3  Adv.  Marc,  i.    19. 

4   Tert.,  1.   c,  i.    1  ;  iv.  4 ;  De  carne  Christi,  c.   2.  5  Ambros.,  De  parad.,  v.  28. 

6  Tert.,  De  praescr.  haeret.,   c.  30 ;  De  carne  Christi,   c.   6 ;  al. 

7  Comm.  in  Matth.,  prol. 


§    2  6.       THE  JUDAISTIC    LITERATURE.  8 1 

tive  reconstructions  of  the  Gospel  of  Marcion  cf.  A.  Hahn,  1823  and  1832; 
Hilgenfeld,  1850;  G.  Volckmar,  1852;  also  the  work  of  W.  C.  van  Manen 
(1887)  on  the  reconstruction  of  Galatians  according  to  Marcion.  All  such  efforts 
are  more  or  less  antiquated  since  the  work  oiZahn,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl. 
Kanons,  ii.  409 — 529,  «Marcions  Neues  Testament»  (an  essay  in  text- 
reconstruction);  cf.  ib.,  i.  587 — 718,  a  criticism  of  the  Bible  of  Marcion. 
A.  Hahn,  Antitheses  Marcionis  gnostici,  liber  deperditus,  nunc  quoad  eius  fieri 
potuit  restitutus,  Königsberg,  1823.  A.  Harnack,  Sieben  neue  Bruchstücke 
der  Syllogismen  des  Apelles  (from  Ambros.,  De  parad.,  vi.  30  —  32;  vii.  35; 
viii.  38,  40,  41),  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  (1890),  vi.  3,  in — 120;  cf. 
Harnack,  ib.,  xx.,  new  series  (1900) ,  v.  3,  93 — 100.  F.  jf.  J.  Jackso?i, 
Christian  Difficulties  in  the  Second  and  Twentieth  Centuries.  Study  of 
Marcion  and  his  relation  to  modern  thought,  London,  1903.  See  G.  Salmon, 
Marcion,  in  Diet,  of  Christian  Biography,  London,   1880,  iii.  817 — 824. 

8.  THE  ENCRATITES.  These  heretics  rejected  as  sinful  both  ma- 
trimony and  the  use  of  meat  and  wine.  The  chief  spokesmen  of  their 
doctrines  in  the  second  century  were  Tatian  (§  18)  and  Julius  Cas- 
sianus.  About  the  year  170  the  latter  published  at  least  two  works: 
one  entitled  esTjpjnxd  in  several  books1,  and  the  other  «On  con- 
tinence or  celibacy»   (izspi  iyxparscag  77  Tisp}  edvoo'/iaQ) 2. 

Hilgenfeld,  Die  Ketzergesch.  des  Urchristentums,  pp.  546 — 549.  Zahn, 
Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  ii.  632 — 636,  750. 

§  26.     The  Judaistic  Literature. 

1.  THE  EBIONITES.  The  heretical  group  known  as  Ebionites  saw 
in  Jesus  a  son  of  Joseph,  and  denied  His  birth  of  the  Blessed 
Virgin  and  the  Holy  Ghost3.  Several  of  their  authoritative  books 
are  mentioned  by  Epiphanius4,  among  others  «the  so-called  Journeys 
of  Peter»  (see  below)  and  the  Gospel  of  the  Ebionites  (§  29,  3). 
Toward  the  end  of  the  second  century  the  Ebionite  Symmachus, 
known  also  for  his  translation  of  the  Old  Testament  into  Greek, 
wrote  an  exegetical  work  in  which  he  attacked  the  Gospel  of 
St.  Matthew  5.  It  is  supposed  that  this  work  is  identical  with  that 
known  to  the  Syrian  writer  Ebed  Jesu  (f  13 18)  as  Liber  Symmachi 
de  distinctione  praeceptorum. 

G.  Mercati,  L'  eta  di  Simmaco  1'  interprete  e  S.  Epifanio,  Modena,  1892. 

2.  THE  ELKESAITES.  These  heretics,  known  also  as  Sampsaei, 
professed  an  odd  mixture  of  Judaism,  Christianity  and  Heathenism. 
Epiphanius  tells  us 6  that  they  possessed  two  symbolic  books,  one 
under  the  name  of  Elxai,  founder  of  the  sect,  and  another  under 
the  name  of  his  brother  Jexai.  Both  Epiphanius7  and  Hippolytus8 
quote   several   passages   from   the  Book  of  Elxai.     The   date    of  its 

1  Clem,  Al.,  Strom.,  i.   21,    10 1 ;   cf.  Hier.,  Comm.  in  Gal.  ad  vi.   18. 

2  Clem.  AL,  Strom.,   iii.   13,   91 — 92. 

3  Iren.,  Adv.  haer.,  iii.   21,    1  ;  v.    1,   3.  4  Haer.  30. 

5  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.    17;  cf.  Hier.,  De  viris  illustr.,  c.   54. 

6  Haer.   53,   1.  7  Haer.    19,    1   ff . ;   53,    1.  8  Philos.,  ix.    13 — 17. 
Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  6 


8-2  FIRST    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

composition   would   be    about   the   year    ioo,    according   to   Hilgen- 
feld;  others  locate  it,  more  accurately,  about  the  year  200. 

The  fragments  of  the  Book  of  Elxai  are  collected  in  Hilgenfeld,  Novum 
Testamentum  extra  canonem  rec,  2.  ed.,  Leipzig,  1881,  fasc.  iii.  227 — 240; 
cf.  Id.,  Judentum  und  Judenchristentum,  Leipzig,   1886,  pp.   103  ff. 

3.  THE  SO-CALLED  CLEMENTINES  (CLEMENTINE  LITERATURE). 
Under  this  title  (Kfy/isvna)  are  usually  collected  certain  writings 
that  treat  of  the  life  of  St.  Clement  of  Rome,  and  pretend  to  have 
been  written  by  him.  They  are  the  Recognitions  of  Clement,  the 
Homilies,  and  two  Letters.  The  ten  books  of  the  Recognitions  are 
no  longer  extant  in  the  original  Greek,  but  only  in  a  Latin  version 
made  by  Rufinus  of  Aquileia,  and  in  a  Syriac  revision.  According 
to  the  Latin  version  Clement  was  much  troubled  in  his  youth  by 
doubts  concerning  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  the  origin  of  the 
world,  and  similar  matters.  Hearing  that  the  Son  of  God  had 
appeared  in  Judaea  he  made  a  journey  to  the  East,  where  he  met 
the  Apostle  Peter,  from  whom  he  received  the  desired  enlightenment. 
Thereupon  he  became  his  disciple  and  accompanied  him  on  his 
journeys.  At  Caesarea  he  was  witness  to  the  dispute  of  St.  Peter 
with  Simon  Magus  (Recog.  ii.  20 — iii.  48).  Somewhat  later,  Cle- 
ment made  known  to  the  Apostle  the  circumstances  of  his  early  life. 
When  he  was  five  years  of  age,  his  mother,  Matthidia,  a  relative  of 
the  Emperor,  had  fled  from  Rome  as  the  result  of  a  dream,  taking 
with  her  his  two  elder  brothers,  the  twins  Faustinus  and  Faustus. 
They  were  sought  for  in  vain ;  indeed,  his  father  Faustinianus  never 
returned  from  the  toilsome  and  fruitless  journey  he  undertook  in  search 
of  wife  and  children  (vii.  8—10).  But  the  long  separated  family  was 
now  to  be  re-united.  During  an  excursion  from  Antharadus  to  the 
island  of  Aradus,  St.  Peter  discovered  in  a  beggar  woman  the  mother 
of  his  disciple.  Two  other  disciples  and  companions  of  the  Apostle 
made  themselves  known  as  Faustinus  and  Faustus,  the  brothers  of 
Clement.  Finally  the  father  Faustinianus  was  discovered  by  St.  Peter. 
It  is  to  this  happy  ending  of  the  story  that  the  work  owes  its 
peculiar  title :  Recognitio?ies  =  dvayvdjaetQ,  (hayvcoptofiot.  It  was  also 
known  to  antiquity  by  other  titles,  among  them  Thpiodot  Ilezpoo  or 
KXrjfiEvroQ,  Itinerarium,  Historia,  Gesta  Clementis.  The  chief  scope 
of  the  work,  however,  was  not  the  story  of  the  vicissitudes  of 
St.  Clement,  but  rather  the  recommendation  of  certain  teachings  of 
St.  Peter  that  are  interwoven  with  the  narrative.  The  book  is  really 
a  religious  romance.  In  the  Latin  version  the  didactic  exposition  of 
the  original  is  reproduced  in  a  very  incomplete  way.  In  a  preliminary 
remark  Rufinus  says  that  there  were  current  two  recensions  of  the 
Greek  text  (in  graeco  eiusdem  operis  avayvaxjsajv,  hoc  est  recogni- 
tionum,  duas  editiones  haberi),  and  that  in  both  were  found  theological 


§    2 6.      THE  JUDAISTIC    LITERATURE.  83 

discussions  (quaedam  de  ingenito  Deo  genitoque  disserta  et  de  aliis 
nonnullis),  that  he  had  thought  it  proper  to  omit.  By  a  second 
recension  of  the  workRufinus  doubtless  means  the  Homilies  fSfiikiat),  the 
Greek  text  of  which  we  possess.  They  are  twenty  in  number,  and  are 
prefaced  by  two  Letters  of  Peter  and  Clement,  respectively,  to  James 
of  Jerusalem.  In  the  first  letter  Peter  requests  James  to  keep  rigorously 
secret  the  discourses  he  has  sent  him  (rcov  i/udju  xrjpuypdrcov  äg 
Inzptyd  aoi  ßißloog,  c.  i).  In  the  second  Clement  informs  James  that 
he  had  received  episcopal  consecration  from  Peter  a  little  before  the 
latter's  death.  He  had  also  been  instructed  to  send  to  James  a 
lengthy  report  concerning  his  past  life;  he  performs  this  duty  by 
sending  him  an  extract  of  the  discourses  that  Peter  had  already  sent 
to  James.  The  work  pretends  therefore  to  have  been  sent  to  James 
under  the  title  of  «Clement's  Epitome  of  the  Sermons  made  by  Peter 
during  his  journeys»  (AÄfj/isvrog  nou  Ilzrpoo  enidrjpiojv  xrjpoypdrcov 
imrofXTJ},  c.  20),  a  title  that  recalls  at  once  the  pretended  «Journeys 
of  Peter  written  by  Clement»  fvaig  Ttsptodoig  xaXoupevatg  IJirpoü  zdlg 
did  KlqpzvTug  Ypa<peiaatg),  which  Epiphanius  (Haer.  30,  15)  tells  us 
was  an  Ebionite  work.  The  story  of  Clement,  as  told  in  the  Ho- 
milies, is  again  a  cover  for  the  doctrinal  teaching  of  Peter.  With 
the  exception  of  a  few  insignificant  details  (Horn.  xii.  8)  the  story 
tallies  in  all  essentials  with  that  related  in  the  Recognitions.  The 
doctrinal  ideas  exhibit  close  conformity  with  those  of  the  Elkesaites. 
The  heathen  elements  of  the  Elkesaite  teaching  are  no  longer  ap- 
parent, but  the  essential  identity  of  Christianity  and  Judaism  is  very 
energetically  maintained.  It  is  the  same  prophet  who  revealed  himself 
in  Adam,  Moses  and  Jesus.  As  it  fell  to  Moses  to  restore  the  primitive 
religion  when  obscured  and  disfigured  by  sin,  so  the  new  revelation 
in  Jesus  had  become  necessary  by  reason  of  the  gradual  darkening 
and  alteration  of  the  original  Mosaic  revelation  (Horn.  ii.  38  ff.). 
Finally,  the  two  Epitomes  or  Compendia  omit  the  theological  dis- 
cussions, recapitulate  the  narrative  of  the  Homilies,  and  relate  the 
doings  of  St.  Clement  at  Rome,  together  with  his  martyrdom.  While 
both  Recognitions  and  Homilies  certainly  antedate  the  Epitomes,  the 
question  of  priority  raised  by  the  similarity  of  the  subject  matter 
of  the  Recognitions  and  the  Homilies  is  not  an  easy  one.  It  has 
been  answered  in  so  many  contradictory  ways,  that  there  is  an 
urgent  need  for  a  new  examination  of  the  problem.  Hilgenfeld 
believes  that  the  Recognitions  are  the  earlier  work,  of  which  the 
Homilies  offer  us  an  enlargement.  Uhlhorn  maintains  the  priority  of 
the  Homilies,  and  Lehmann  finds  in  the  Recognitions  two  distinct 
sections,  the  first  of  which  (Book  I — III)  is  older  than  the  Homilies, 
while  the  second  (Book  IV — X)  is  posterior  to  them.  Langen 
places  the  composition  of  the  Homilies  at  Caesarea  toward  the  end 
of  the   second   century,    that   of  the  Recognitions   at  Antioch  about 

6* 


84  FIRST    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

the  beginning  of  the  third  century.  Both  works,  however,  he  declares, 
are  merely  revisions,  or  rather  polemical  refutations  of  a  still  earlier 
work,  written  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  135,  with  the  purpose 
of  establishing  at  Rome  the  supreme  ecclesiastical  primacy.  While  it 
is  likely  enough  that  older  writings  have  been  embodied  in  the 
Clementines,  as  we  now  read  them,  the  hypothesis  of  a  primitive 
work  of  this  character  and  tendency  is  both  arbitrary  and  untenable. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  probably  true  that,  in  their  traditional  shape, 
the  Clementines  exhibit  a  Judaizing  tendency,  in  so  far  as  they  desire 
to  see  the  primacy  transferred  from  Peter  (and  Clement)  to  James, 
from  Rome  to  Jerusalem  (or  Caesarea  and  Antioch). 

The  first  printed  edition  of  the  Recognitions  from  the  Latin  version  of 
Rufinus  was  published  by  J.  Faber  Stapulensis  (Lefevre  d'Estaples),  Paris,  1504. 
An  improved  text  was  published  by  Cotelerius,  Patres  aevi  apostolici,  i., 
Paris,  1672.  For  other  editions  cf.  Schoencmann ,  Bibl.  hist.-litt.  Patrum 
lat,  i.  633  rT.  The  most  recent  isthat  o(£.  G.  Gersdorf,  Leipzig,  1838  (Bibl. 
Patr.  eccles.  lat.  sei.,  i;  Migne,  PG.,  i).  Clementis  Romani  Recognitiones 
syriace  P.  A.  de  Lagarde  edidit,  Leipzig  and  London,   1861. 

The  Homilies  were  first  edited  by  Cotelier  (1.  c),  but  this  edition  did 
not  go  beyond  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  Homily,  where  the  manuscript 
ended  from  which  the  text  was  taken.  Similarly  the  edition  of  A.  Schwegler, 
Stuttgart,  1847.  The  complete  text  is  reproduced  in  Migne  (PG.,  ii),  from 
the  edition  of  A.  R.  M.  Dressel,  Clementis  Romani  quae  feruntur  homiliae 
viginti  nunc  primum  integrae,  Göttingen,  1853.  P.  de  Lagarde  was  the 
first  to  publish  (the  Greek  text  without  translation)  an  edition  answering  in 
all  essentials  to  modern  requirements :  Clementina,  edited  by  P.  de  Lagarde, 
Leipzig,  1865;  the  introduction  (pp.  3 — 28)  was  reprinted  by  him  in  his 
Mitteilungen,  Göttingen,  1884,  pp.  26 — 54.  A  remark  of  Lagarde's  is  worth 
quoting:  «I  think  we  shall  not  make  any  substantial  progress  without  a 
proper  and  continuous  commentary  on  the  Clementine  Recognitions  and 
Homilies»  (Clementina,  p.  11).  Rufinus'  version  of  the  Letter  of  Clement  to 
James,  which  even  in  the  time  of  Rufinus  was  prefixed  to  the  Recognitions, 
was  edited  anew  by  O.  F.  Fritzsche,  Epistola  Clementis  ad  Jacobum  (progr.), 
Zürich,  1873.  Dressel  published  both  Epitomes:  Clementinorum  Epitome 
duae,  Leipzig,  1859.  ^-  LLilgenfeld,  Die  clementinischen  Rekognitionen  und 
Homilien,  Jena,  1848.  G.  Uhlhorn,  Die  Homilien  und  Rekognitionen  des 
Clemens  Romanus,  Göttingen,  1854.  J.  Lehmann,  Die  clementinischen 
Schriften,  Gotha,  1869.  G.  Frommberger,  De  Simone  Mägo.  Pars  prima: 
De  origine  Pseudo-Clementinorum  (Dissert,  inaug.),  Breslau,  1886.  H.  M. 
van  Nes,  Het  Nieuwe  Testament  in  de  Clementinen  (Dissert,  inaug.),  Amster- 
dam, 1887.  y.  Langen,  Die  Clemensromane,  Gotha,  1890.  Cf.  A.  Brüll 
in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1891),  lxxiii.  577 — 601;  C.  Bigg,  The  Clementine 
Homilies,  in  Studia  biblica  et  ecclesiastica,  Oxford,  1890,  ii.  157 — 193; 
F.  Hort,  Notes  introductory  to  the  study  of  the  Clementine  Recognitions, 
London,  1901 ;  y.  Chapman,  Origen  and  the  Date  of  Pseudo-Clemens,  in 
Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1902),  iii.  436 — 441;  y.  Franko,  Beiträge  aus 
dem  Kirchenslavischen  zu  den  Apokryphen  des  Neuen  Testaments.  I:  Zu 
den  Pseudo-Clementinen ,  in  Zeitschr.  für  die  neutestamentl.  Wissensch. 
(1902),  iii.  146 — 155.  For  another  and  a  later  Clementine  apocryphal 
writing  cf.  G.  Mercati,  Note  di  letteratura  biblica  e  cristiana  antica  (Studi 
e  Testi,  v),  Rome,  1901,  80 — 81,  238 — 241.  y.  Bergmann,  Les  elements  juifs 
dans  les  pseudo-Clementines,  in  Revue  des  etudes  juives,    1903,  pp.  59 — 98. 


§  27.  THE  MONTANIST  LITERATURE.    §  28.  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  APOCRYPHA.    85 

H.  U.  Meyboom ,  De  Clemens-Roman.  Part  I:  Synoptische  Vertaling  van 
den  Tekst,  Groningen,  1902.  Part  II,  Groningen,  1904.  A.  Hilgenfeld,  Ori- 
genes  und  Pseudo-Clemens,  in  Zeitschr.  für  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1903),  xlvi. 
342 — 351.  Chapman  (1.  c,  p.  441)  places  the  Clementines  in  early  part  of  the 
fourth  century;  cf.  Kellner,  in  Theol.  Revue  (1903),  ii.  421— 422.  H.  Waitz, 
Die  Pseudo-Clementinen,  Homilien  und  Rekognitionen.  Eine  quellenkritische 
Untersuchung  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen  [Leipzig  1904],  x.  4).  A.  Hilgen- 
feld, Pseudo- Clemens  in  moderner  Facon,  in  Zeitschr.  für  wissenschaftl. 
Theol.,  1904,  pp.  545  —  567.  A.  C.  Headlam,  The  Clementine  Literature,  in 
Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1901),  iii.  41 — 58.  F.  H.  Chase,  The  Clementine 
Literature,  in  Hastings'  Diet,  of  the  Bible  (1900),  art.   «Peter»,  p.  775. 

§  27.     The  Montanist  Literature. 

Montanism  arose  in  Phrygia  and  called  itself  «the  new  prophecy», 
the  completion  of  the .  revelation  made  by  God  to  man.  In  their 
ecstatic  exaltation  or  delirium  Montanus  and  his  female  companions, 
Priscilla  (Prisca)  and  Maximilla,  pretended  to  be  the  organs  of  the 
Paraclete ;  they  were  to  be  its  voice,  not  so  much  for  the  communi- 
cation of  new  truths  of  faith  as  for  new  and  higher  demands  upon 
Christian  life.  Certain  collections  of  oracles  of  the  prophetic  tri- 
folium  —  «countless  books»,  says  Hippolytus1  —  were  held  by  the 
Montanists  as  equal  in  authority  to  the  books  of  biblical  revelation. 
They  were  held  to  be  «new  Scriptures»,  says  the  Roman  priest 
Gaius2.  They  had  also  for  use  in  their  meetings  new  spiritual 
chants  or  Psalms 3.  The  work  of  the  Montanist  writer  Asterius  Ur- 
banus,  cited4  by  an  anonymous  Antimontanist  in  192 — 193,  was 
probably  a  collection  of  oracular  replies.  The  Antimontanist  work 
of  the  apologist  Miltiades  (§  19,  1)  gave  his  opponents  an  occasion 
to  reply5.  Themison,  prominent  among  the  Montanists  of  Phrygia, 
«imitated  the  Apostle  and  wrote  a  Catholic  Letter,  i.  e.  addressed  to 
all  Christians»  6.  Early  in  the  third  century  a  certain  Proclus  wrote  in 
defence  of  Montanism  at  Rome7.  The  most  brilliant  convert  to  the 
«new  prophecy»   was  Tertullian  of  Carthage  (§  50). 

G.  N.  Bonwetsch,  Die  Geschichte  des  Montanismus,  Erlangen,  1881. 
A.  Hilgenfeld,  Die  Ketzergeschichte  des  Urchristentums,  Leipzig,  1884, 
pp.  560 — 601 :  «Die  Kataphryger».  Th.  Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Gesch. 
des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  und  der  altkirchl.  Literatur,  Erlangen  and  Leipzig, 
:^93;  v-  3 — 57  :   «Die  Chronologie  des  Montanismus». 

§  28.     The  New  Testament  Apocrypha. 

1.  GENERAL  NOTIONS.  The  term,  New  Testament  Apocrypha, 
is   given   to   a   widely   ramified   class   of  writings   that   imitate  those 

1  Philos.,  viii.    19.  2  Apud  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   20,   3. 

3  Tert.,  Adv.  Marc,  v.  8 ;  De  anima,   c.   9. 

4  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  v.   16,   17.  6  Ib.,  v.   17,    1. 
G  Apollonius  apud  Eus.,  1.   c,  v.   18,   5. 

7  Gaius  apud  Eus.,  1.   c,   iii.   31,   4. 


86  FIRST    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

of  the  New  Testament.  The  subject-matter  is  the  same,  and  usually 
these  works  are  attributed  to  the  authors  of  the  New  Testament. 
In  view  of  their  form  and  plan  they  may  be  divided  like  the  canon- 
ical Scriptures  into  Gospels,  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  Letters  of  the 
Apostles,  and  Apocalypses.  In  origin  and  tendency  they  are  partly 
works  of  heretical  and  partisan  authors,  and  partly  works  of  edi- 
fication written  with  good  intentions.  Indeed,  the  silence  of  the  New 
Testament  concerning  the  youth  of  our  Lord,  the  life  of  His  Mother, 
and  the  later  history  of  the  Apostles,  seemed  especially  destined  to 
excite  pious  imaginations ;  in  this  way  sprang  up  about  the  trunk  of 
the  historico-canonical  Scriptures  a  wild  and  luxurious  vegetation  of 
legends.  But  the  majority  of  the  Apocrypha,  especially  the  Gospels 
and  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  were  written  for  the  purpose  of  propagating 
the  doctrines  of  some  particular  heresy.  Among  the  Gnostics  especially 
this  kind  of  literature  spread  with  almost  unearthly  rapidity.  All 
those  Apocrypha  that  affect  more  or  less  an  historical  form  are 
characterized  especially,  from  a  literary  point  of  view,  by  a  certain 
weirdness,  extravagance  and  absurdity.  It  has  been  often  and  rightly 
remarked  that  the  relations  of  the  apocryphal  historiography  to 
the  historical  books  of  the  New  Testament  are  such  as  to  bring 
out  very  clearly  the  purity  and  truth  of  the  canonical  narratives. 
Withal,  the  apocryphal  legends  and  romances  have  played  a  pro- 
minent role  in  history.  Their  subject-matter  was  very  attractive; 
hence  in  many  lands  they  furnished  the  material  for  pious  reading 
or  conversation,  and  were  in  a  way  the  spiritual  nourishment  of  the 
people.  Not  only  did  harmless  legends  meet  with  acceptance  and 
approval,  but  several  distinctly  heretical  works,  revised  and  stripped 
of  their  errors,  continued  to  affect  Christian  thought  long  after  the 
disappearance  of  their  original  circle  of  readers. 

The  most  important  of  the  older  collections  of  New  Testament  Apo- 
crypha is  that  of  the  well-known  literary  historian  J.  A.  Fabricius ,  Codex 
apocryphus  Novi  Testamenti,  2  voll.,  Hamburg,  1703— 1719.  The  first 
volume  was  reprinted  in  17 19,  the  second  in  1743.  J.  C.  Thilo  planned 
as  his  life-work  a  complete  critical  collection ;  apart  from  separate  editions 
of  several  apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  he  prepared  only  the  first 
volume  of  his  projected  work ;  it  offers  an  entirely  new,  and  in  every  way 
admirable,  recension  of  many  apocryphal  Gospels :  Codex  apocryphus  Novi 
Testamenti,  Leipzig,  1832,  i.  A  work  of  much  less  value  is  the  edition 
brought  out  by  W.  Giles,  containing  chiefly  apocryphal  Gospels:  Codex 
apocryphus  Novi  Testamenti,  2  voll.,  London,  1853.  Since  then  there 
have  appeared  only  collective  editions  of  specific  groups  of  New  Testament 
Apocrypha,  Gospels,  Acts,  etc.  (cf.  pp.  87  ff.).  H.  Hilgenfeld ,  Novum 
Testamentum  extra  canonem  receptum,  fasc.  iv,  Leipzig,  1866,  2.  ed.,  1884. 
M.  Rh.  James,  Apocrypha  anecdota,  Cambridge,  1893  (Texts  and  Studies, 
ii.  3).  Id.,  Apocrypha  anecdota,  2.  series,  Cambridge,  1897  (Texts  and 
Studies,  v.  1).  P.  Lacan,  Fragments  dApocryphes  coptes  de  la  Biblio- 
theque  Nationale,  publies  dans  les  Memoires  de  la  Mission  francaise 
d'archeologie  Orientale,  Le  Caire,  1904. 


§  28.   THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  APOCRYPHA.  87 

The  editions  of  the  Syriac  Apocrypha  of  the  New  Testament  are  in- 
dicated by  E.  Nestle,  in  his  Syrische  Grammatik,  2.  ed.,  Berlin,  1888, 
Litteratura,  27  ff.;  cf.  Nestle,  in  Realencykl.  für  prot.  Theol.  und  Kirche, 
Leipzig,  3.  ed.,  1897,  iii.  168.  R.  Duval,  La  litterature  syriaque,  Paris,  1899 
(Biblioth.  de  l'enseignement  de  l'histoire  ecclesiastique.  Anciennes  littera- 
tures  chretiennes,  ii.),  pp.  95 — 120,  with  corrections  and  additions,  Paris, 
1900,  pp.  20 — 21.  For  the  Apocrypha  in  Old-Slavonic  cf.  N.  Bonwetsch 
apud  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  i.  902 — 917.  For  the  Coptic 
Apocrypha  cf.  C.  Schmidt  apud  Harnack  1.  o,  i.  919 — 924.  R.  Basset,  Les 
Apocryphes  ethiopiens  traduits  en  francais,  Paris,  1893  ff.  Cf.  James,  Apo- 
crypha anecd.,  2.  series,  pp.  166  ff.  Recent  collections  of  versions:  K.  Fr. 
Borberg,  Bibliothek  der  neutestamentl.  Apokryphen,  Stuttgart,  1841,  vol.  i. 
(the  only  volume  printed).  Migne,  Dictionnaire  des  Apocryphes,  2  voll.,  Paris, 
1856 — 1858.  —  Movers  (Kaulen),  Apokryphen  und  Apokryphenliteratur, 
in  Kirchenlexikon  of  Wetzer  and  Weite,  2.  ed.,  Freiburg,  1882,  i.  1036  to 
1084,  a  profoundly  erudite  study.  R.  Hof  mann,  Apokryphen  des  Neuen 
Testamentes,  in  Realencykl.  für  prot.  Theol.  und  Kirche,  Leipzig,  3.  ed.,  1896, 
i.  653 — 670.  H  J.  Holtzmann,  Lehrbuch  der  hist.-krit.  Einleitung  in  das 
Neue  Testament,  2.  ed.,  Freiburg,  1886,  pp.  534—554:  «Die  neutestament- 
lichen  Apokryphen».  £.  Preuschen,  Die  Reste  der  außerkanonischen  Evan- 
gelien und  urchristlichen  Überlieferungen,  Gießen,  1901.  B.  Pick,  The 
Extra-Canonical  Life  of  Christ,  New  York,  1903.  James  de  Quincy  Donehoo, 
The  Apocryphal  and  Legendary  Life  of  Christ,  New  York,  1903.  F.  H. 
Chase,  Encyclopedia  Biblica. 

2.  APOCRYPHAL  GOSPELS.  By  far  the  greater  part  of  the  Apo- 
cryphal Gospels  that  have  been  preserved,- or  are  in  any  way  known 
to  us,  were  written  in  the  first  three  centuries  by  Gnostics,  with  the 
purpose  of  lending  an  apostolic  sanction  to  their  doctrines.  Not  a 
few  of  these  works  enjoyed  in  particular  Gnostic  sects  or  group  of 
sects  an  authority  identical  with  or  similar  to  that  of  the  canonical 
Gospels  in  the  Catholic  Church.  We  have  mentioned  the  Diatessaron 
of  Tatian  (§  18,  3),  the  Gospel  of  Basilides  (§25,  2),  the  Valentinian 
Gospel  of  the  Truth  (§  25,  5),  the  Gospel  of  Marcion  and  Apelles 
(§  25,  7)  etc.,  and  shall  have  occasion  to  mention  others.  If  we 
look  at  the  structure  and  content  of  the  apocryphal  gospels  we  see 
that  some  are  based  on  the  canonical  books  whose  material  they 
develop  under  the  influence  of  their  own  doctrines;  others  invent  their 
stories  quite  freely.  The  latter  treat  of  the  youth  of  our  Lord  or  of 
His  actions  after  the  Resurrection.  As  early  as  the  time  of  St.  Irenaeus, 
the  Gnostics  were  wont  to  lament  the  silence  of  the  Gospels  about 
the  life  of  Jesus  Christ  before  His  Baptism  and  after  His  Resurrection ; 
they  also  relate  that,  after  the  latter,  He  spent  eighteen  months  on 
earth  in  order  to  initiate  more  profoundly  some  privileged  disciples 
in  the  mysteries  of  His  teaching  *.  The  Gospel  according  to  the 
Hebrews,  and  the  Ebionite  Gospel,  belong  to  other  heretical  or 
sectarian  communities;  the  Protevangelium  Jacobi  is  the  product  of 
ecclesiastical  circles. 

1  Adv.  haer.,  i.   30,    14;  cf.  i.   3,   2. 


88  FIRST    PERIOD.       THIRD   SECTION. 

Evangelia  apocrypha,  edidit  C.  Tischendorf,  Leipzig,  1853,  2.  ed., 
1876.  F.  Robinson,  Coptic  Apocryphal  Gospels,  Cambridge,  1896  (Texts 
and  Studies,  iv.  2).  M.  N.  Speranskiy ',  The  Slavonic  Apocryphal  Gos- 
pels (Russian),  Moscow,  1895.  E.  Preuschen,  Antilegomena.  Die  Reste 
der  außerkanonischen  Evangelien  und  urchristlichen  Überlieferungen, 
Gießen,  1901. 

R.  Clemens,  Die  geheim  gehaltenen  oder  sog.  apokryphischen  Evange- 
lien, ins  Deutsche  übertragen,  Stuttgart,  1852.  B.  H.  Cowper,  The  Apo- 
cryphal Gospels  and  other  Documents  relating  to  the  history  of  Christ, 
translated  from  the  originals,  6.  ed.,  London,  1897.  C.  Tischendorf,  De 
evangeliorum  apocryphorum  origine  et  usu,  The  Hague,  1 89 1 .  R.  A.  Lipsius, 
Apocryphal  Gospels,  in  Diet,  of  Christ.  Biogr.  (London,  1880),  ii.  700 — 717. 
A.  Tappehorn,  Außerbiblische  Nachrichten  oder  die  Apokryphen  liber  die 
Geburt,  Kindheit  und  das  Lebensende  Jesu  und  Maria,  Paderborn,  1885. 
Th.  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  Erlangen  and  Leipzig,  1892, 
ii.  621 — 797:  «Über  apokryphe  Evangelien».  J.  G.  Tasker,  (art.)  «Apo- 
cryphal Gospels»  in  Hastings'  Diet,  of  the  Bible  (extra  vol.),  1904,  pp.  420 
to  438.  Battifol,  (art.)  «Evangiles  Apocryphes»  in  Vigouroux,  Diet,  de  la 
Bible.     Tome  II,  col.  21 14 — 2 118. 

3.  APOCRYPHAL  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES.  The  ancient  traditions 
concerning  the  lives  and  deaths  of  the  Apostles  were  soon  enriched, 
for  many  reasons,  with  an  abundance  of  fabulous  tales;  according 
as  this  narrative-material  was  committed  to  writing,  there  took  place 
a  still  stronger  colouring  of  these  stories.  The  Apocryphal  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  are  in  reality  religious  romances.  Some  of  them  seek 
merely  to  satisfy  a  pious  curiosity.  Most  of  them,  however,  under 
the  cover  of  marvellous  and  pleasure-giving  tales,  tend  to  create  an 
opening  for  heretical  doctrines  that  are  artfully  insinuated  in  them. 
In  his  commentary  on  the  apocryphal  Third  Letter  to  the  Corinthians, 
Ephraem  Syrus  reproaches  the  followers  of  Bardesanes  with  having 
changed  the  missionaries  of  the  Lord  into  preachers  of  the  impiety 
of  Bardesanes.  Later,  especially  since  the  beginning  of  the  fifth 
century,  a  certain  Leucius,  or,  as  Photius  writes  it 1,  Leucius  Charinus, 
is  very  often  mentioned  as  the  writer  of  heretical  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
especially  of  Acts  of  St.  John.  The  earliest  traces  of  this  very 
dubious  personality  are  found  in  Epiphanius2  and  Pacianus3.  It  is 
probable  that  in  the  introduction  to  the  Acts  of  John,  which  have 
reached  us  only  in  a  very  fragmentary  state,  the  author  made  himself 
known  as  Leucius,  a  disciple  of  the  Apostle.  Probably  the  same 
hand  wrote  the  equally  Gnostic  Acts  of  Peter  and  perhaps  the  no 
less  Gnostic  Acts  of  Andrew.  Many  Gnostic  Acts  were  «worked 
over»  at  a  later  date  by  Catholics,  in  such  a  way  as  to  retain,  with 
more  or  less  consistency,  the  tales  about  the  journeys  and  miracles 
of  the  Apostles,  while  the  heretical  discourses  and  teachings  were 
cut  out.  The  original  Gnostic  texts  have  generally  perished,  while 
the  Catholic    revisions   of  the   same   have   been   preserved,    at   least 

1  Bibl.  Cod.    114.  2  Haer.   51,  6. 

3  Ep.  i.   ad   Sympr.,   c.   2. 


§  28.   THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  APOCRYPHA.  89 

in  fragments.  Of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  written  originally  by 
Catholics  only  a  few  remnants  have  reached  our  time. 

Foremost  and  epoch-making  among  the  works  on  the  Apocryphal  Acts 
of  the  Apostles  is  that  by  R.  A.  Lipsius,  Die  apokryphen  Apostelgeschichten 
und  Apostellegenden,  2  voll.,  Braunschweig  1883 — 1890,  with  a  supplemen- 
tary fascicule.  Acta  Apostolorum  apocrypha,  edidit  C.  Tische?idorf ,  Leipzig, 
1 85 1.  Cf.  Additamenta  ad  Acta  Apostolorum  apocrypha  in  Tischendorf, 
Apocalypses  apocryphae,  Leipzig,  1886,  xlvii— 1.  137—167.  Acta  Aposto- 
lorum apocrypha,  post  C.  Tischendorf  denuo  ediderunt  R.  A.  Lipsius  et 
M.  Bonnet.  Pars  prior,  Leipzig,  1891.  Partis  alterius  vol.  i.,  1898.  Supple- 
mentum  codicis  apocryphi  i:  Acta  Thomae.  Edidit  M.  Bonnet,  Leipzig, 
1883.    Suppl.  cod.  apocr.  ii:  Acta  Andreae.    Ed.  M.  Bonnet,  Paris,   1895. 

For  similar  apocryphal  material  in  Syriac,  cf.  IV.  Wright,  Apocryphal 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  2  voll.,  London,  187 1.  /.  Guidi  has  edited  (Rendi- 
conti  della  Regia  Accademia  dei  Lincei,  1887 — 1888)  and  translated  into 
Italian  (Giornale  della  Societä  Asiatica  Italiana  [1888],  ii.  1 — 66)  some 
Coptic  fragments  of  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  Other  fragments  were  published 
in  1890  by  O.  von  Lemm.  For  further  detail  cf.  Lipsius,  Die  apokryphen 
Apostelgeschichten  und  Apostellegenden,  Supplement,  pp.  98  ff.,  259  ff. 
Ld.,  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  in  Diet,  of  Christ.  Biogr.,  London, 
1880,  i.  17 — 32.  S.  C.  Mala?i  translated  into  English  (187 1)  an  Ethiopic 
collection  (from  the  Coptic  through  the  Arabic)  of  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
under  the  title  «Conflicts  of  the  Apostles».  E.  A.  W.  Budge  began  the 
publication  of  the  Ethiopic  text  with  an  English  translation,  vol.  i,  London, 
1899,  vol.  ii  (the  last),  1901.  A.  v.  Gutschmid ,  Die  Königsnamen  in  den 
apokryphen  Apostelgeschichten  (Rhein.  Museum  für  Philol. ,  new  series 
[1864],  xix.  161 — 183,  380 — 401,  reprinted  in  Kleine  Schriften  von  A.  v.  Gut- 
schmid, herausgeg.  von  Fr.Riihl,  Leipzig,  1890,  ii.  332  —  394.  Zahn,  Gesch. 
des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  (1892),  ii.  2,  797 — 910  :  «Über  apokryphe  Apo- 
kalypsen und  Apostelgeschichten».  Duchesne,  Les  anciens  recueils  des 
legendes  apostoliques  (Compte  rendu  du  III.  Congres  scientifique  internat. 
des  Catholiques,  section  v  (Bruxelles,   1895),  pp.  67  —  79. 

4.  APOCRYPHAL  LETTERS  OF  THE  APOSTLES.  In  comparison  with 
the  long  series  of  Apocryphal  Gospels  and  Acts,  there  are  but  few 
similar  documents  in  the  shape  of  special  Letters,  unconnected  with 
larger  works.  During  the  first  three  or  four  centuries  we  come  across 
only  a  few  Letters  or  Collections  of  Letters  current  under  the  name 
of  St.  Paul.  The  apocryphal  third  Letter  to  the  Corinthians,  ori- 
ginally a  part  of  the  apocryphal  Acta  Pauli,  enjoyed  for  a  time 
canonical  authority  in  the  churches  of  Syria  and  Armenia. 

There  is  no  special  edition  of  all  the  Apocryphal  Letters  of  the  Apostles. 
Cf.  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  ii.  2,  565 — 621:  «Unechte 
Paulusbriefe». 

5.  APOCRYPHAL  APOCALYPSES.  An  Apocalypse  of  Peter  has  reached 
us  in  fragments.  It  belongs  to  the  first  half  of  the  second  century; 
all  other  apocryphal  Apocalypses  bearing  New  Testament  names  are 
of  a  later  date. 

Apocalypses  apocryphae.  Maximam  partem  nunc  primum  edidit  C. 
Tischendorf,  Leipzig,  1866.  Zahn,  1.  c,  ii.  2,  797 — 910:  «Über  apokryphe 
Apokalypsen  und  Apostelgeschichten».  R.  A.  Lipsius,  Apocryphal  Apo 
calypses,  in  Diet,  of  Christ.  Biogr.,  London,   1880,  i.   130 — 132. 


90  FIRST    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

§  29.     Apocryphal   Gospels. 

1.  A  PAPYRUS-FRAGMENT.  A  small  fragment  of  a  third-century 
papyrus-codex  discovered  at  Fayüm  in  Middle  Egypt  treats  of  certain 
prophecies  of  the  Lord  concerning  the  scandal  of  his  disciples  and 
the  denial  of  Peter.  It  offers  a  parallel  to  Mt.  xxvi.  30 — 34  and 
Mk.  xiv.  26 — 30.  Bickell  and  others  look  on  it  as  one  of  those  lost 
evangelical  narratives  of  which  Luke  speaks  in  the  prologue  of  his 
Gospel.  It  is  possible,  however,  that  it  is  merely  a  loose  quotation 
from  Matthew  or  Mark,  and  has  drifted  down  as  a  relic  from  some 
homily  or  other  writing. 

The  fragment  has  been  several  times  edited  and  commented  on  by 
G.  Bickell,  first  in  Zeitschr.  für  kath.  Theol.  (1885),  lx-  49^ — 504,  and  finally 
in  Mitteilungen  aus  der  Sammlung  der  Papyrus  Erzherzog  Rainer  (1892), 
v.  78 — 82.  Cf.  Ad.  Harnack,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  (1889),  v.  4, 
481 — 497.  He  thinks  it  a  Gospel-fragment.  Th.  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neu- 
testamentl.  Kanons,  Erlangen  and  Leipzig,  1892,  ii.  2,  780 — 790:  in  his 
opinion  it  is  a  loose  quotation  from  the  Gospels.  P.  Savi,  in  Revue  Biblique 
(1892),  i.  321—344,  and  in  Litteratura  cristiana  antica,  Studi  critici  del 
P.  Paolo  Savi  barnabita,  raccolti  e  riordinati  dal  can.  Fr.  Polese,  Siena, 
1899,  pp.  123 — 145,  thought  that  it  looked  more  like  a  fragment  of  a 
Gospel  than  a  loose  quotation  from  one. 

2.  THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  THE  HEBREWS.  Since  Lessing 
(f  1781)  there  is  frequent  mention  in  modern  Gospel -criticism  of 
the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  (to  *«#'  'EßpaiouQ  soayyihov, 
Evangelium  secundum  seu  juxta  Hebraeos).  It  is  known  to  us  only 
through  stray  references  in  ancient  ecclesiastical  writers  such  as 
St.  Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Origen,  Eusebius,  St.  Epiphanius, 
St.  Jerome,  and  others.  A  decisive  authority  attaches  to  the  statements 
of  St.  Jerome.  To  the  evidence  of  earlier  writers  that  the  Gospel 
according  to  the  Hebrews  had  been  written  in  Hebrew,  he  added 
the  specific  information:  «chaldaico  quidem  syroque  sermone,  sed 
hebraicis  litteris  scriptum  est»,  i.  e.  it  was  composed  in  Aramaic, 
but  transliterated  in  Hebrew  1.  About  390  Jerome  translated  it  2  from 
Aramaic  into  Greek  and  Latin;  both  versions  together  with  the 
original  have  fallen  a  prey  to  the  ravages  of  time.  Perhaps  the 
quotations  in  Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Origen  are  proof  that  long 
before  St.  Jerome  there  existed  a  Greek  version  of  this  Gospel.  As  to 
its  contents,  we  may  gather  from  St.  Jerome  and  the  other  witnesses 
that  it  was  closely  related  to  the  canonical  Gospel  of  Matthew, 
though  not  identical  with  it.  They  were  alike  in  their  general  dis- 
position and  in  many  more  or  less  characteristic  details;  the  dif- 
ferences consisted  in  numerous  minor  additions  which  in  the  Gospel 
according  to  the  Hebrews  amplified  and  completed  the  subject-matter 
of  Matthew.     Apart   from   the    original   language   of  the   former,    it 

1  Dial.  adv.  Pelag.,  iii.   2.  2  De  viris  illustr.,  c.  2. 


§    29.       APOCRYPHAL    GOSPELS.  9 1 

was  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  entire  ancient  Church  that  the 
Gospel  of  Matthew  had  been  composed  in  Aramaic.  Hence  it  is 
not  easy  to  avoid  the  hypothesis  that  the  Gospel  according  to  the 
Hebrews  was  merely  a  revision  and  enlargement  of  the  Gospel  of 
Matthew.  It  cannot  have  been  composed  later  than  about  the  middle 
of  the  second  century,  since  Hegesippus  knew  it  and  made  use  of 
it 1.  The  Aramaic-speaking  Judaeo-Christians  of  Palestine  and  Syria 
were  known  as  «Hebrews».  Jerome  always  uses  the  term  «Nazaraei» 
for  those  who  read  and  venerate  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews ; 
on  one  occasion  he  calls  them  Nazaraeans  and  Ebionites  2 ;  Epiphanius 
distinguishes 3  the  Nazaraeans ,  generally  orthodox,  from  the  clearly 
heterodox  Ebionites.  The  title  to  xaft  'EßpaiooQ  ebayyiXiov  was 
evidently  fashioned  after  the  formula  eoayyiXdov  xara  Marb^aj.ov;  it 
very  probably  meant  no  more  than  the  exclusive  use  of  that  Gospel 
in  Hebrew  circles. 

E.  B.  Nicholson,  The  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  London,  1879. 
Hilgenfeld ,  Nov.  Test,  extra  can.  rec,  fasc.  iv  (2.  ed.,  Leipzig,  1884), 
5 — 31 ;  cf.  Id.,  in  Zeitschr.  fur  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1884),  xxvii.  188 — 194; 
(1889),  xxxii.  280 — 302.  E.  Preuschen,  Antilegomena,  Gießen,  1901,  pp.  3  —  8; 
D.  Gla,  Die  Originalsprache  des  Matthäusevangeliums,  Paderborn  and  Münster, 
1887,  pp.  101 — 121;  R.  Handmann,  Das  Hebräerevangelium  (Texte  und 
Untersuchungen,  Leipzig,  1888,  v.  3);  Th.  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl. 
Kanons,  ii.  2,  642—723  (an  excellent  investigation);  Harnack,  Gesch.  der 
altchristl.  Literatur,  ii.   1,  631 — 651. 

3.  THE  GOSPEL  OF  THE  TWELVE  AND  THE  GOSPEL  OF  THE 
EBIONITES.  Under  the  name  of  «Gospel  of  the  Twelve»  (which 
we  meet  first  in  Origen)4,  as  translated  by  St.  Jerome:  «Evangelium 
iuxta  duodecim  Apostolos»,  we  are  not  to  understand  the  Gospel 
according  to  the  Hebrews5,  but  rather  the  Gospel  of  the  Ebionites, 
i.  e.  of  those  Judaeo-Christians  who  held  Jesus  for  no  more  than  the 
son  of  Joseph.  This  Gospel  has  also  perished ;  according  to  St.  Epi- 
phanius 6  it  was  a  compilation  made  for  their  purpose  from  the 
canonical  Gospels.  The  twelve  Apostles  seem  to  have  been  intro- 
duced in  the  role  of  narrators7.  It  certainly  was  written  in  Greek, 
probably  about   150 — 200. 

Hilgenfeld,  Nov.  Test,  extra  can.  rec,  fasc.  iv,  2.  ed.,  Leipzig,  1884, 
pp.  32  —  38.  Preuschen,  Antilegomena,  pp.  9 — 11.  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neu- 
testamentl. Kanons,  ii.  2,  724 — 742.  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Lite- 
ratur, ii.  1,  625 — 631.  Zahn  in  Neue  kirchliche  Zeitschr.  (1900),  xi.  361  —  370, 
believes  that  some  Coptic  fragments  edited  by  A.  Jakoby  (Ein  neues  Evan- 
geliumfragment, Straßburg,  1900)  and  by  him  assigned  to  the  Gospel  of 
the  Egyptians  (see  below),  are  really  fragments  of  the  Gospel  of  the  Twelve. 


1  Ems.,  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.   22,   8. 

2  Comm.  in  Matth.  ad  xii.    13.  3  Haer.   29 — 30. 

4  Horn.  i.   in  Lucam :  tu  i-iysypa/j.fj.di>oi>  twi>  dtodsxa   tuayyiXtov. 

5  Hier.,  Dial.   adv.  Pelag.,  iii.   2.  6  Haer.   30. 
7  Epiph.,  Haer.  30,    13. 


92  FIRST    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

Despite  the  similarity  of  title,  the  latter  has  no  relation  with  the  text  pub- 
lished by  J.  Mendel  Harris,  The  Gospel  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  together 
with  the  Apocalypses  of  each  one  of  them,  edited  from  the  Syriac  ms.,  etc., 
Cambridge,  1900.  Cf.  Bessarione  VIII  (1903 — 1904),  vol.  v.  1421,  157  — 176, 
for  a  French  translation  by  E.  Revillout  of  some  unedited  Coptic  frag- 
ments that  he  thinks  belong  to  the  Gospel  of  the  Twelve. 

4.  THE  GOSPEL  OF  THE  EGYPTIANS.  Clement  of  Alexandria  is 
the  first  to  mention1  a  Gospel  of  the  Egyptians  (to  xolt  AlyorcTwoc, 
euayyitiovj,  with  the  observation  that  it  contained  a  dialogue  of  the 
Lord  with  Salome,  quoted  by  the  Encratites  (Julius  Cassianus)  to 
show  that  marriage  should  be  abolished.  Hippolytus  says2  that 
the  Naassenes  made  use  of  expressions  from  the  Gospel  of  the 
Egyptians  (to  ETciypaipofievov  xax  AlyuTTTtoug  edayyihov)  in  defence 
of  their  theories  on  the  soul  (and  the  transmigration  of  souls?). 
Epiphanius3  says  that  the  Sabellians  established  «their  entire  error» 
and  in  particular  their  Modalistic  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  on  the 
Egyptian  Gospel  (to  xakoofievov  AiyunTwv  zbayyihov) '.  In  the  so- 
called  Second  Letter  to  the  Corinthians  (12,  2)  there  is  a  reference 
to  the  above-mentioned  dialogue  of  Salome  with  the  Lord.  It  is 
doubtful  whether  this  author  used  the  Egyptian  Gospel  and  indeed 
whether  he  drew  from  any  written  Gospel.  That  the  Gospel  was 
an  heretical  one  is  proven  by  the  circles  in  which  it  was  most  wel- 
come —  Encratites,  Naassenes,  Sabellians;  in  the  words  addressed  to 
Salome  the  Lord  is  made  to  preach  the  Pythagorean  theory  of  numbers. 
The  work  was  very  probably  composed  in  Egypt  about  150.  —  In 
the  territory  of  ancient  Oxyrhynchus,  in  Lower  Egypt,  among  the 
debris  of  a  mound  of  ruins,  there  was  recently  found  a  papyrus  folio 
containing  seven  Sayings,  or  mutilated  fragments  of  Sayings,  that 
all  begin  with  the  formula  Xeyet  'Itjoouq.  Some  of  these  Sayings  are 
quite  similar,  in  their  entirety  or  in  part,  to  words  of  our  Lord  in 
the  canonical  Gospels ;  most  of  them  are  quite  foreign  to  the  canonical 
tradition  and  could  never  have  been  pronounced  by  our  Saviour. 
The  folio  probably  belongs  to  a  book  of  excerpts  from  some  apo- 
cryphal Gospel.  The  most  natural  suggestion,  owing  to  the  place 
of  its  discovery  and  the  Encratite  tendency  of  some  of  the  Sayings, 
is  that  they  were  taken  from  the  Gospel  of  the  Egyptians. 

Hilgenfeld,  Nov.  Test,  extra  can.  rec,  2.  ed.,  1884,  fasc.  iv,  pp.  42 — 48 
Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  ii.  2,  628 — 642.  Harnack,  Gesch 
der  altchristl.  Literatur,  ii.  1,  612 — 622.  —  JB.  P.  Grenfell  and  A.  S.  Hunt 
Ao-yia  'It)(jou,  London,  1897.  They  are  also  found  in  Grenfell  and  Hunt 
The  Oxyrhynchus  Papyri,  London,  1898,  i.  E.  Preuschen,  Antilegomena 
pp.  43 — 44.  For  the  discussions  raised  by  the  finding  of  these  «Sayings»,  cf. 
Holtzmann  inTheol.  Jahresbericht  (1897),  xvii.  115  sq.;  (1898),  xviii.  148  sq. 
also  Harnack,  Über  die  jüngst  entdeckten  Sprüche  Jesu,  Freiburg,  1897 
G.  Esser  in  the  Katholik  (1898),  i.  26 — 43,   137  — 151.   Ch.  Taylor,  The  Oxy 

1  Strom.,   iii.   9,   63;    13,   93.  2  Philos.,  v.    7.  3  Haer.   62,   2. 


§    29.       APOCRYPHAL    GOSPELS.  93 

rhynchus  Logia,  Oxford,  1899.  A.  von  Scholz  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1900), 
Ixxxii.  1 — 22.  A.  Chiapelli  in  Nuova  Antologia,  4.  series  (1897),  lxxi. 
524 — 534.  U.  Fracas sini'm.  Rivista  Bibliografica  Italiana  (1898),  iii.  513 — 518. 
G.  Semeria,  Le  Parole  di  Gesü  recentemente  scoperte  e  1'  ultima  fase  della 
critica  evangelica,  Genova,  1898.  For  an  extensive  collection  of  extra- 
canonical  «Sayings»  of  Jesus,  cf.  A.  Resch,  Agrapha,  Leipzig,  1898  (Texte 
und  Untersuchungen,  v.  4),  and  J.  H.  Ropes,  Die  Sprüche  Jesu,  die  in 
den  kanonischen  Evangelien  nicht  überliefert  sind,   1896  (ib.,  xiv.  2). 

C.  G.  Griffinhoofe ,  The  Unwritten  Sayings  of  Christ,  Words  of  Our 
Lord  not  recorded  in  the  four  Gospels,  including  those  recently  discovered, 
Cambridge,  1903.  A  new  series  of  Logia  from  the  papyri  of  Oxyrhynchus 
is  promised. 

5.  THE  GOSPEL  OF  PETER.  Until  1 892,  the  Gospel  of  Peter  was 
known  to  us  only  through  a  few  references  in  ancient  writers.  The 
most  important  of  these  was  found  in  Eusebius 1,  in  a  fragment  of  a 
letter  of  Serapion,  bishop  of  Antioch  (about  200),  to  the  Christians  of 
the  neighbouring  Rhossus  or  Rhosus  on  the  coast  of  Syria.  He  forbids 
therein  the  reading  of  a  pseudo-Petrine  Gospel  (dvofiari  IHrpoo  ed- 
ayyifaov),  which  by  certain  additions  (izpoadizaTaXfiiva)  to  the  genuine 
teaching  of  the  Saviour  was  made  to  favour  Docetism,  and  had  been  in 
use  among  Docetic-minded  Christians  of  Antioch  and  Rhossus.  It  is.  very 
probable  that  to  the  same  text  belongs  a  Gospel-fragment  edited  in  1 892 
by  Bouriant  from  an  eighth-century  codex,  which  contains  the  principal 
part  of  the  Lord's  Passion,  together  with  an  account  of  the  Resur- 
rection, very  diffuse  and  highly  embellished  with  quite  curious  mira- 
culous tales.  The  work  bears  internal  evidence  of  being  a  remnant 
of  a  pseudo-Petrine  writing  («But  I,  Simon  Peter»,  v.  60;  «But  I, 
with  my  companions»  v.  26).  Doceto-Gnostic  ideas  are  also  visible 
in  it  («But  he  was  silent  as  one  who  felt  no  grief  at  all»  v.  10, 
in  reference  to  the  Lord  upon  the  Cross;  cf.  v.  19).  Von  Schubert 
has  proved  that  the  author  had  before  him  the  four  Gospels,  and 
took  certain  features  of  his  story  now  from  one  and  now  from  another, 
transforming  at  the  same  time  the  canonical  narratives  in  the  interest 
of  his  own  peculiar  tendencies.  His  particular  aim  is  to  make  the 
Jews  alone  responsible  for  the  death  of  the  Lord,  and  to  present  the 
Roman  authorities  in  a  light  favourable  to  Christ  and  the  Christians. 
It  was  very  probably  composed,  about  the  middle  of  the  second 
century,  at  Antioch  in  Doceto-Gnostic  circles.  There  is  no  foundation 
for  the  attempt  to  identify  it  with  the  work  referred  to  by  St.  Justin 
Martyr  as  äxofjLvyfxoveöpaTa  IHrpoo2.  The  work  referred  to  under 
that  title  in  the  Dialogue  with  Trypho  (c.  106),  is  the  canonical 
Gospel  of  Mark,  not  the  Gospel  of  Peter.  According  to  Eusebius3 
this  Gospel  was  used  more  or  less  exclusively  by  heretics. 

The  codex  discovered  by  U.  Bouriant  in  a  Christian  tomb  at  Akhmim, 
the   ancient  Panopolis,  in  Upper  Egypt,  contains,  besides  the  above  men- 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.    12,   3  — 6.  2  Just.,  Dial.  c.  Tryph.,  c.    106. 

3  Bus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  iii.  25,  6  —  7;   cf.  iii.  3,  2. 


94  FIRST    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

tioned  text,  an  Apocalypse  of  Peter  (§  32,  1)  and  important  remnants  of 
the  Greek  Book  of  Enoch.  The  discoverer  was  the  first  to  publish  these 
texts  in  Memoires  publies  par  les  membres  de  la  Mission  archeologique 
francaise  au  Caire,  Paris,  1892,  ix.,  fasc.  1,  pp.  91 — 147,  with  a  facsimile 
of  the  whole  codex  and  an  introduction  by  A.  Lods,  ib.,  ix.,  fasc.  3  (Paris, 
1893).  A  facsimile  of  the  pages  containing  the  Petrine  fragments,  and  an 
accurate  recension  of  the  same,  were  soon  after  published  by  O.  von  Geb- 
hardt,  Das  Evangelium  und  die  Apokalypse  des  Petrus,  Leipzig,  1893.  The 
text  is  also  in  Preuschen,  Antilegomena,  pp.  14 — 18;  cf.  pp.  13 — 14.  The 
remnants  of  the  Gospel  of  Peter,  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter,  the  Kerygma  Petri, 
were  edited  by  E.  Klostermann  and  H.  Lietzmann,  in  Kleine  Texte  für  theol. 
Vorlesungen  und  Übungen,  Apocrypha  i,  Bonn,  1903.  An  English  trans- 
lation was  made  by  J.  Armitage  Robinson,  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (Am. 
ed.  1885),  ix.  7 — 8.  For  the  «literary  deluge»  that  followed  the  dis- 
covery of  these  fragments  cf.  H.  Lüdemann,  in  Theol.  Jahresbericht  (1892), 
xii.  171 — 173;  (1893),  xiii.  171 — 181;  (1894),  xiv.  185  ff.  It  will  be  enough 
to  indicate  the  following:  Ad.  Harnack,  Bruchstücke  des  Evangeliums  und 
der  Apokalypse  des  Petrus  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  ix.  2),  Leipzig, 
1893;  2.  ed.,  ib.,  1898.  Funk,  Fragmente  des  Evangeliums  und  der  Apo- 
kalypse des  Petrus,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1893),  lxxv.  255—288.  Th.  Zahn, 
Das  Evangelium  des  Petrus,  Erlangen  and  Leipzig,  1893.  H.  von  Schubert, 
Die  Komposition  des  pseudopetrinischen  Evangelienfragments  (with  a  syn- 
optical table),  Berlin,  1893.  D.  Votier,  Petrusevangelium  oder  Ägypter- 
evangelium? Tübingen,  1893.  He  is  of  opinion  that  the  fragment  belongs 
to  the  Egyptian  Gospel  (see  p.  92).  E.  Piccolo?nini,  Sul  testo  dei  frammenti 
dell'  Evangelio  e  dell'  Apocalissi  del  Pseudo-Petro,  Rome,  1899.  ,S.  Minocchi, 
II  Nuovo  Testamento  tradotto  ed  annotato,  Roma,  1900,  pp.  385 — 391,  a 
partial  version  of  the  Gospel  of  Peter.  V.  H.  Stanton,  The  Gospel  of  Peter : 
Its  History  and  Character  considered  in  relation  to  the  history  of  the  re- 
cognition in  the  Church  of  the  canonical  Gospels,  in  Journal  of  Theo- 
logical Studies  (1900),  ii.  1 — 25.  Stocks,  Zum  Petrusevangelium,  in  Neue 
kirchl.  Zeitschr.  (1902),  xiii.  276—314;  ib.  (1903),  pp.  515 — 542.  H.Usener, 
Eine  Spur  des  Petrusevangeliums  (in  the  Acts  of  St.  Pancratios  of  Taor- 
mina),  in  Zeitschr.  für  die  neutestamentl.  Wissensch.  (1902),  iii.  353 — 358. 
F.  H.  Chase,  (art.)  «Peter»  10.  (1)  «The  Gospel  of  Peter»,  in  Hastings' 
Diet,  of  the  Bible  (1900),  vol.  Ill,  p.  776. 

6.  THE  GOSPELS  OF  MATTHIAS,  PHILIP,  AND  THOMAS.  The  Gospel 
of  Matthias  *  seems  to  have  been  identical  with  the  «Traditions  of 
Matthias»2  often  cited  by  Clement  of  Alexandria,  a  Gnostic  work, 
especially  favoured  by  the  Basilidians3  and  probably  used  by  Ba- 
silides  himself  and  his  son  Isidore4.  The  Gospel  of  Philip  was  also 
of  Gnostic  origin.  The  name  is  first  found  in  Epiphanius5,  and  it 
was  probably  known  to  the  Gnostic  author  of  Pistis  Sophia  6,  between 
250  and  300.  The  Gospel  of  Thomas  was  also  a  Gnostic  product.  It 
is  mentioned  by  Hippolytus 7  and  Origen  8  and  very  probably  existed 
before  the  time  of  Irenaeus9.  In  its  actual  forms,  Greek,  Latin, 
Syriac,    Slavonic,    it  is  only  an  abbreviated  and  expurgated  copy  of 

1  Orig.,  Horn.    1   in  Luc.      Ens.  1.   c,   iii.   25,   6 — 7. 

8  Clem.  Al.,  Strom.,  ii.  9,  45;  vii.    13,   82:    napadoaztq  Marftiou. 

3  Ib.,  vii.    17,    108.  4  Hippol.,  Philos.,  vii.  20. 

5  Haer.   26,    13.  6  Cf.  the  edition  of  Schwartze-Petermann,  pp.   69  ff. 

7  Philos.,   v.   7.  8  Horn.    I    in  Luc.  9  Adv.   haer.,   i.   20,    I. 


§    29.       APOCRYPHAL    GOSPELS.  95 

the  original  work;  the  longer  and  perhaps  the  older  of  the  various 
recensions  bears  in  Tischendorf  the  title :  Ocopa  'IoparjAiroo  <pdoa6<pou 
p-qra  £cq  to.  natdtxa  too  xopioo.  It  is  addressed  to  the  Christians 
converted  from  heathenism  (c.  i)  and  relates  a  series  of  miracles  said 
to  have  been  performed  by  Christ  from  the  fifth  to  the  twelfth  year 
of  His  youth.  The  Divine  Child  is  presented  to  us  utterly  without 
dignity,  and  is  made  to  exhibit  His  miraculous  powers  in  a  manner 
at  the  very  best  quite  puerile.  The  style  is  vulgar,  and  the  diction 
is  as  common  as  the  content  is  disgusting. 

For  the  Gospel  and  Traditions  of  Matthias  cf.  Th.  Zahn,  Gesch.  des 
neutestamentl.  Kanons,  ii.  2,  751 — 761;  Harnack ,  Gesch.  der  altchristl. 
Literatur,  i.  17  f.;  ii.  1,  595 — 598.  For  the  Gospel  of  Philip  cf.  Zahn,  1.  c, 
ii.  2,  761 — -768;  Harnack,  1.  c,  i.  14  f. ;  ii.  I.  592  ff.  The  longer  of  the 
two  Greek  recensions  of  the  Gospel  of  Thomas  was  edited  by  j.  A.  Min- 
garelli,  in  Nuova  Raccolta  d' opuscoli  scientifici  e  filologici,  Venezia,  1764, 
xii.  73 — 155;  by  J.  C.  Thilo,  Codex  apocryphus  Novi  Testamenti,  Leipzig, 
1832,  i.  275 — 315  (cf.  Lxxii—  xci);  by  C.  Tischendorf,  Evangelia  apo- 
crypha (2.  ed.,  Leipzig,  1876),  pp.  140  —  157  (cf.  xxxvi — xlviii).  Tischen- 
dorf  (1.  c,  pp.  158 — 163)  added  a  shorter  Greek  recension  to  the  longer  one 
and  (pp.  164 — 180)  a  Latin  Tractatus  de  pueritia  Jesu  secundum  Thomam. 
W.  Wright  translated  and  published  a  Syriac  version  in  Contributions  to 
the  Apocryphal  Literature  of  the  New  Testament,  London,  1865,  pp.  11 — 16 
for  the  Syriac,  pp.  6 — 11  for  the  P2nglish  text.  For  the  Slavonic  recensions 
cf.  Bonwetsch,  in  Harnack,  1.  c,  i.  910.  A  German  version  of  the  longer 
Greek  recension  in  Thilo  is  found  in  K.  Fr.  Borberg,  Bibliothek  der  neu- 
testamentl. Apokryphen,  Stuttgart,  1841,  i.  57  —  84;  L.  Conrady,  DasThomas- 
evangelium,  in  Theol.  Studien  und  Kritiken  (1903),  lxxvi.  378—459.  For 
the  Gospel  of  Thomas  cf.  Zahn,  1.  c,  ii.  2,  768 — 773;  Harnack,  1.  c,  i 
15 — 17;  ii.  1,  593  —  595.  E.Kuhn  attempted,  unsuccessfully,  to  prove  the 
Buddhistic  origin  of  the  stories  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  Thomas  concerning 
the  marvellous  knowledge  shown  in  the  village  school  by  the  Divine  Child  \ 
Festgabe  zum  fünfzigjährigen  Doktorjubiläum  of  A.  Weber,  Leipzig,  1896, 
pp.   116 — 119. 

7.  THE  PROTEVANGELIUM  JACOBI.  A  much  better  impression  is 
created  by  the  so-called  Protevangelium  Jacobi,  which  gives  an 
account  of  the  life  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  until  the  Slaughter  of  the 
Innocents  at  Bethlehem.  The  names  of  her  parents  are  here  given 
for  the  first  time  as  Joachim  and  Anna.  The  diction  is  chaster,  the 
whole  tone  of  the  narrative  more  noble,  and  the  contents  more  inter- 
esting and  important  than  in  most  other  apocrypha.  The  author  calls 
himself  «Jacobus»,  and  his  book  a  «History»  {lazopta,  c.  25,1).  The 
title  of  Protevangelium  (-KptoTEüayyiXiov) ,  i.  e.  primum  evangelium, 
was  given  the  work  by  G.  Postel  (f  1581).  There  are  difficulties  in 
the  way  of  admitting  a  single  authorship  for  the  text  as  found  in 
the  manuscripts.  In  the  narrative  of  the  birth  of  the  Lord  (cc.  18,  2; 
19,  1  2)  there  is  no  introduction,  and  Joseph  appears  suddenly  on 
the  scene  speaking  in  the  first  person.    The  closing  chapters  (22 — 24), 

1  Cf.  cc.  6  and  14  of  the  longer  Greek  recension,  and  Iren.,  Adv.  haer.,  i.  20,  1. 


g6  FIRST    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

in  which  are  related  the  persecution  of  John  the  Baptist  on  the 
occasion  of  the  Slaughter  of  the  Innocents,  and  the  execution  of 
his  father  Zacharias  by  order  of  Herod ,  seem  to  be  later  ad- 
ditions. The  first  express  mention  of  the  work  (at  least  of  its  original 
nucleus)  is  by  Origen  *  but  traces  of  it  are  found  with  sufficient  cer- 
tainty in  the  writings  of  Justin2.  Its  composition  is,  therefore, 
generally  referred  to  the  first  decades  of  the  second  century.  The 
author  was  certainly  a  Judaeo-Christian,  not  from  Palestine,  perhaps, 
but  from  Egypt  or  Asia  Minor.  There  is  no  sufficient  foundation 
for  the  hypothesis  of  Conrady  that  the  Greek  text  is  a  translation 
of  a  Hebrew  original.  In  so  far  as  it  deals  with  biblical  material, 
the  Gospel  is  based  on  the  narratives  of  Matthew  and  Luke;  the 
features  relative  to  the  time  before  the  espousals  of  Joseph  and 
Mary  tend  to  glorify  the  Mother  of  God,  but  have  no  historical  value. 
The  edifying  tendency  of  the  book  is  responsible  for  its  wide  diffusion 
and  the  great  influence  it  has  exercised. 

The  editio  princeps  of  the  Greek  text  is  that  of  M.  N e  ander ,  Basle, 
1564.  The  best  editions  are  those  of  Thilo,  Codex  apocr.  Novi  Test., 
Leipzig,  1832,  i.  159 — 273  (cf.  xlv — lxxii),  and  Tischendorf,  Evang.  apocr. 
(2.  ed.,  Leipzig,  1876),  pp.  1 — 50  (cf.  xn — xxn).  In  a  work  entitled  An 
Alexandrian  Erotic  Fragment  and  other  Greek  Papyri,  chiefly  Ptolemaic, 
Oxford,  1896,  pp.  13 — 19,  B.  P.  Grenfell  published  a  fifth-  or  sixth-century 
papyrus  fragment  (cc.  7,  2  — 10,  1),  of  the  Protevangelium.  A  fragment 
of  a  Syriac  version  (cc.  17 — 25),  with  an  English  translation,  is  found  in 
Wright,  Contributions  to  the  Apocryphal  Literature  of  the  New  Testament, 
London,  1865.  —  The  Protevangelium  Jacobi  and  Transitus  Mariae,  with 
texts  from  the  Septuagint,  the  Coran,  the  Peschitto  and  from  a  Syriac 
hymn  in  a  Syro-Arabic  palimpsest  of  the  fifth  and  other  centuries,  edited 
and  translated  by  A.  Smith  Lewis,  Cambridge,  1902  (Studia  Sinaitica,  n.  XI). 
F.  Nestle,  Ein  syrisches  Bruchstück  aus  dem  Protoevangelium  Jacobi,  in 
Zeitschr.  für  die  neutestamentl.  Wissensch.  (1902),  iii.  86  —  87.  In  tne  Ame- 
rican Journal  of  Theology  (1897),  i.  424 — 442,  F.  C.  Conybeare  made  known 
an  Armenian  version,  and  translated  it  into  English.  For  the  Slavonic 
versions  cf.  N.  Bonwetsch,  in  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  i. 
909  ff. ;  for  Coptic  and  Arabic  versions  Thilo ,  1.  c,  Proleg.  pp.  lxvii  ff. 
There  are  German  versions  by  Borberg  (after  Thilo),  Bibliothek  der  neu- 
testamentl. Apokryphen  (Stuttgart,  1 841),  i.  9 — 56,  and  by  F.  A.  v.  Lehner 
(after  Tischendorf),  Die  Marienverehrung  in  den  ersten  Jahrhunderten 
(2.  ed.,  Stuttgart,  1886),  pp.  223 — 236.  L.  Conrady ,  Das  Protevangelium 
Jacobi  in  neuer  Beleuchtung,  in  Theol.  Studien  und  Kritiken  (1889),  lxii. 
728 — 784.  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  ii.  2,  774—780.  Id., 
Retractiones,  iv,  in  Neue  kirchl.  Zeitschr.  (1902),  xiii.  19 — 22.  Harnack, 
1.  c,  ii.   1,   598 — 603. 

8.  THE  GOSPELS  OF  ANDREW,  BARNABAS,  AND  BARTHOLOMEW. 
In  the  so-called  Decretal  of  Gelasius,  De  recipiendis  et  non  re- 
cipients libris,  we  meet  with  the  titles  of  Apocryphal  Gospels :  nomine 
Andreae,  nomine  Barnabae,  nomine  Bartholomaei.  Probably  under  the 

1  Comm.  in  Matth.,  x.    17:  ij  ßißkoq  'Iaxwßou. 

2  Dial.   c.   Tryph.,   cc.   78,    100;  Apol.,   i.   33. 


§    30-       APOCRYPHAL    ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES.  97 

name  of  Gospel  of  Andrew  are  meant  the  Acts  of  St.  Andrew  (§  30,  6) 
mentioned  by  Pope  Innocent  I.  *  and  by  St.  Augustine  2.  No  Gospel 
of  Barnabas  is  mentioned  in  ancient  ecclesiastical  literature ;  at  a  later 
period  we  meet  with  but  one  mention  of  it  in  the  (Greek)  Catalogue 
of  the  Sixty  Canonical  Books.  A  Gospel  of  Bartholomew  is  spoken 
of  by  St.  Jerome3,  but  no  more  precise  knowledge  of  it  has  reached  us. 

The  Catalogue  of  the  Sixty  Canonical  Books  has  been  lately  edited 
anew  by  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  ii.  1,  289 — 293.  A  frag- 
ment of  the  Gospel  of  Bartholomew  is  said  to  exist  in  a  codex  of  the 
Vatican  Library:  A.  Mai,  Nova  Patr.  Bibl. ,  Rome,  1854,  vii.  3,  117. 
W.  E.  A.  Axon,  On  the  Mahommedan  Gospel  of  Barnabas,  in  Journal  of 
Theol.  Studies  (1902),  iii.  441 — 453. 

9.  ORIGINS  OF  THE  PILATE-LITERATURE.  Apropos  of  the  mi- 
racles of  the  Lord  and  His  crucifixion,  Justin  Martyr  refers  the 
Roman  Emperors  to  the  Acts  of  the  trial  under  Pilate  (ra  kizt 
Tlovrioo  JTcMtoü  yzvofizva  äxza)*.  It  is  probable  that  he  had  not  in 
mind  any  published  document  current  under  that  title,  but  took  it 
for  granted  that  the  acts  of  the  trial  of  Jesus  were  to  be  found  in 
the  imperial  archives  at  Rome.  The  extant  Acta  or  Gesta  Pilati, 
or  Evangelium  Nicodemi,  relate  the  interrogatory  before  Pilate,  the 
condemnation,  crucifixion,  and  resurrection  of  Jesus.  They  are  of 
Christian  origin,  and  are  not  older  than  the  fourth  century.  Ter- 
tullian  mentions5  a  report  of  Pilate  to  Tiberius  on  the  death  and 
resurrection  of  our  Lord.  The  Letter  of  Pilate  to  Emperor  Claudius, 
in  the  Acts  of  Peter  and  Paul  (§  30,  4),  might  be  a  revision  of 
of  this  report;  it  is,  in  any  case,  of  Christian  origin. 

R.  A.  Lipsius ,  Die  Pilatusakten  kritisch  untersucht,  Kiel,  1871. 
H.  v.  Schubert,  Die  Komposition  des  pseudo-petrinischen  Evangelienfrag- 
ments,  Berlin.  1893,  pp.  175  ff.  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur, 
ii.  1,  603m  The  Anaphora  Pilati  etc.,  in  Syriac  and  Arabic,  Studia 
Sinaitica  (1890),  v.  15 — 66,  with  English  translation,  1 — 14.  E.  v.  Dobschiltz, 
Der  Prozeß  Jesu  nach  den  Acta  Pilati,  in  Zeitschr.  für  die  neutestamentl. 
Wissensch.  (1902),  iii.  89  114.  G.  E.  Abbott,  The  Report  and  Death  of 
Pilate,  in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1902),  iv.  83 — 88.  Th.  Mommsen, 
Die  Pilatusakten,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  neutest.  Wissenschaft  (1902),  iii.  198 — 205. 
T.  H.  Bindley,  Pontius  Pilate  in  the  Creed,  in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies 
(1904),  vi.   112 — 113. 

§  30.    Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

I.  THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER  AND  THE  PREACHING  OF  PAUL. 
Clement  of  Alexandria  cites  frequently6  a  «Preaching  of  Peter»  (Tlirpou 
rfpuflua),  and  treats  it  as  a  trustworthy  source  of  teaching  of  the 
prince  of  the  Apostles.     Similarly  we    learn   from  Origen 7  that   the 

1  Ep.   6  ad  Exsup.,   c.    7.  2  Contra  adv.  leg.  et  proph.,  i.   20,  39. 

3  Comm.  in  Matth.,  prol.  4  Apol.,   i.  35,   48  ;   cf.   c.  38. 

5  Apol.,  c.  21;  cf.  c.   5.  c  Strom.,  i.   29,    182;   ii.   15,   68,  etc. 

7  Comm.  in  Joan.,  xiii.    17. 
Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  7 


98  FIRST    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

Gnostic  Heracleon  (ca.  160 — 170)  invoked  the  authority  of  this 
work.  Origen  himself  doubts  (1.  c.)  its  authenticity,  and  Eusebius 
rejects  it  quite  decidedly  as  an  apocryphal  writing  *.  Nevertheless, 
it  found  acceptance  as  late  as  the  time  of  John  of  Damascus;  for 
the  «Teaching  of  Peter»  (IHrpoo  dtdaaxaXla)  that  is  quoted  by  him2, 
is  very  probably  the  same  as  the  «Preaching  of  Peter»  3.  The  lost 
original  probably  contained  no  continuous  didactic  exposition  but  a 
series  of  discourses  pretending  to  be  the  work  of  Peter;  both  xypoypa 
and  didaaxakia  usually  indicate  teaching  of  a  collective  character. 
The  meagre  fragments  that  have  reached  us  treat  of  the  mission 
of  the  twelve  Apostles  by  the  Lord,  of  the  true,  i.  e.  the  Christian 
adoration  of  God,  and  show  no  traces  of  heretical  teaching.  It  was 
probably  composed  between  100  and  125  (cf.  §  15),  perhaps  by 
reason  of  a  misunderstanding  of  II  Pet.  i.  15.  —  The  only  mention 
of  a  «Preaching  of  Paul»  (Pauli  praedicatio)  is  in  the  pseudo-Cyprianic 
writing  De  rebaplismate  (c.  17);  very  probably,  however,  it  is  the 
«Acts  of  Paul»  that  are  quoted  (seep.  100).  There  seems  to  be  no 
sufficient  reason  for  the  hypothesis  of  Hilgenfeld,  according  to  which 
the  Preaching  of  Peter  and  the  Preaching  of  Paul  were  originally 
one  work  under  the  title  IHrpou  xat  IlaoXoo  x-fjpoypa. 

Extant  fragments  of  these  works  are  collected  and  put  in  order  by 
A.  Hilgenfeld,  in  his  Nov.  Test,  extra  can.  rec.  (2.  ed.,  Leipzig,  1884), 
iv.  51 — 65;  for  the  fragment  of  the  x^pu-fjAa  risrpou  cf.  also  Preuschen, 
Antilegomena,  Gießen,  1901,  pp.  52 — 54.  The  single  fragments  are  discussed 
in  much  detail  by  E.  von  Dobschiltz ,  Das  Kerygma  Petri  kritisch  unter- 
sucht, Leipzig,  1893  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  xi.  1).  Cf.  Hilgenfeld, 
in  Zeitschr.  für  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1893),  ii.  518—541,  and  Zahn,  Gesch. 
des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  (1892),  ii.  2,  820 — 832,  881 — 885.  Apart  from 
their  title,  the  Iletpoo  /Y]pu7(xaxa,  that  pretend  to  be  the  basis  of  the  Cle- 
mentines (cf.  §  26,  3),  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  above-mentioned  text. 
The  «Doctrine  of  Simon  Cephas  in  the  City  of  Rome»,  a  Syriac  text  of  which 
was  published  by  W.  Cureton,  Ancient  Syriac  Documents,  London,  1864, 
pp.  35 — 41 ,  is  not  older  than  the  latter  half  of  the  fourth  century.  Cf. 
Lipsius ,  Die  apokryphen  Apostelgeschichten  und  Apostellegenden  (1887), 
ii.  1,  206  sq.  —  A.  Smith  Lewis ,  The  mythological  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
translated  from  an  Arabic  manuscript  in  the  Convent  of  Deyr-es-Suriani, 
Egypt,  and  from  mss.  in  the  Convent  of  St.  Catherine  of  Mount  Sinai,  and 
in  the  Vatican  Library.  With  a  translation  of  the  palimpsest  fragments  of 
the  Acts  of  Judas  Thomas  from  Cod.  Sin.  Syr.  (Horae  Semiticae ,  iii.  iv 
[London,  1904]  xlvi,  265  ;  viii,  228  pp.).  J.  G.  Tasker,  Mythological  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  in  Expository  Times  (1904),  pp.  no — in. 

2.  THE  ACTS  OF  PETER.  In  their  original  form  the  Acts  (npäsetq) 
of  Peter  are  an  extended  Gnostic  narrative  of  the  doings  and  suf- 
ferings of  the  prince  of  the  Apostles,  composed  shortly  after  the 
middle  of  the  second  century;  the  story  has  reached  us  in  a  respect- 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  iii.  3,   2;  cf.  Hier.,  De  viris  illustr.,   c.    1. 

2  Sacra  Parallela:   Migne,  PC,   xcv.    1157,    1461. 

3  Cf.   Orig.,  De  princ.  praef.  n.   8  :  Petri  doctrina. 


§    30.       APOCRYPHAL    ACTS    OF   THE    APOSTLES.  99 

able  number  of  fragments.  The  account  of  the  martyrdom  of  the 
Apostle,  which  certainly  formed  the  conclusion  of  the  work,  is  extant 
in  the  original  Greek  (juaprupiov  zoo  äyioo  airoaroXou  IHzpoo)  and  in 
a  rhetorically  enlarged  Latin  version  (Martyrium  Beati  Petri  a  Lino 
episcopo  conscriptum)'.  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  in  this  inscription 
it  is  Linus,  the  first  successor  of  Peter,  who  is  meant.  A  revised 
text  is  also  found  in  Old -Slavonic,  Coptic  (Sahidic),  Arabic,  and 
Ethiopic.  Of  the  two  Greek  codices  hitherto  known,  one  has  pre- 
served, together  with  the  account  of  the  martyrdom,  a  small  frag- 
ment of  the  preceding  narrative.  A  larger  fragment  is  attached  to 
the  martyrdom  in  a  rudely-executed  Latin  version  known  as  Actus 
Petri  cum  Simone.  This  text,  as  just  said,  represents  the  most  im- 
portant of  the  extant  fragments  of  the  ancient  Acts  of  Peter.  In  it 
are  told  the  labours  of  St.  Peter  at  Rome,  his  triumph  over  Simon 
Magus  in  the  performance  of  miracles,  the  wretched  end  of  the 
magician  in  consequence  of  his  attempted  flight  to  heaven,  and 
at  great  length  the  glorious  martyrdom  of  the  Apostle  who  was 
crucified  head  downward.  That  it  is  a  work  of  Gnostic  origin  and 
nature  is  plain  from  its  Docetism,  its  prohibition  of  sexual  inter- 
course even  among  married  persons,  and  its  celebration  of  the 
Eucharist  with  bread  and  water.  The  first  certain  evidence  of  it  is 
in  Commodian1,  though  the  actual  title  is  first  mentioned  by  Eusebius2 
who  says  that  it  was  an  heretical  work.  According  to  Lipsius  and 
Zahn  it  was  written  about  160 — 170,  and  by  the  author  of  the  Acts 
of  John  (see  p.  105),  if  similarity  of  ideas  and  diction  are  enough  to 
prove  the  identity  of  authorship.  Pope  Innocent  I.  (401 — 417)  de- 
clared3 that  the  afore-mentioned  Leucius  (cf.  §  28,  3)  was  the  author 
of  both  the  Acts  of  Peter  and  the  Acts  of  John. 

The  fragments  of  the  Acts  of  Peter  are  found  in  Acta  apostolorum 
apocrypha,  edd.  P.  A.  Lipsius  et  M.  Bonnet,  part  I,  Leipzig,  1891.  In  this 
work  were  first  published  from  a  Cod.  Vercellensis  (saec.  vii)  the  Actus  Petri 
cum  Simone,  pp.  45 — 103.  Lipsius  had  already  published,  in  Jahrbücher 
für  prot.  Theol.  (1886),  xii.  86  ff.  (cf.  p.  175  ft.),  the  fxapruptov  xou  d-ytou 
£icoor<SXou  Ilsxpou  that  is  found,  pp.  78—102,  in  Lipsius  and  Bonnet;  cf. 
ib.,  proleg.,  pp.  xivrf.,  for  an  account  of  some  earlier  unserviceable  editions 
of  the  Martyrium  Beati  Petri  apostoli  a  Lino  episcopo  conscriptum,  pp.  1 — 22. 
For  the  Old-Slavonic,  Coptic,  Arabic,  and  Ethiopic  versions  of  the  martyr- 
dom, cf.  Lipsius  and  Bonnet,  proleg.,  pp.  liv.  ff.  We  have  already  men- 
tioned (§  25,  3)  a  Coptic  npa^i?  llsrpou  of  Gnostic  origin. 

An  Armenian  version  of  the  martyrdom  of  Peter  was  published  by 
P.  Vetter,  Die  armenischen  apokryphen  Apostelakten,  i.  Das  gnostische 
Martyrium  Petri,  in  Oriens  christianus  (1901),  i.  217—239.  The  Acts  of 
Peter  are  more  fully  treated  by  Lipsius,  Die  apokryphen  Apostelgeschichten 
und  Apostellegenden  (1887),  ii.   1,  85—284,  and  in  the  supplement  (1890), 

1  Carm.  apolog.  626,  ed.  Dombari. 

2  Hist,   eccl.,  iii.  3,   2;   cf.  Hier.,  De  viris  illustr.,   c.    I. 

3  Ep.  6  ad  Exsup.,  c.   7. 

7* 


100  FIRST   PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

pp.  34 — 47.  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  ii.  2,  832 — 855. 
J.  Franko,  Beiträge  aus  dem  Kirchenslavischen  zu  den  Apokryphen  des 
Neuen  Testaments,  ii:  Zu  den  gnostischen  irsptoSot  nirpou,  in  Zeitschr.  für 
die  neutestamentl.  Wissensch.  (1902),  iii.  315—335.  A.  Baumstark,  Die 
Petrus-  und  Paulusakten  in  der  literarischen  Überlieferung  der  syrischen 
Kirche,  Leipzig,  1902,  and  P.  Peeters ,  in  Analecta  Bolland.  (1902),  xxi. 
121 — 140.  A.  Hilgenfeld,  Die  alten  Actus  Petri,  in  Zeitschr.  für  wissen- 
schaftl.  Theol.  (1903),  xlvi.  322 — 341.  K.  Schmidt,  Die  alten  Petrusakten 
im  Zusammenhang  der  apokryphen  Apostelliteratur,  nebst  einem  neuent 
deckten  Fragment  untersucht,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  new  series 
ix.  1.  G.  Ficker,  Die  Petrusakten,  Beiträge  zu  ihrem  Verständnis,  Leipzig 
1904.  It  is  strange  that  Harnack  (Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  ii.  1 
449  f.)  should  reject  the  Gnostic  origin  and  tendency  of  the  Acts  of  Peter 
and  refer  them  to  the  middle  of  the  third  century.  James,  on  the  other 
hand,  has  lately  defended  the  identity  of  the  author  of  the  Acts  of 
Peter  with  the  second  century  writer  of  the  Acts  of  John.  Cf.  Apocrypha 
Anecdota,  2.  series  (Cambridge,  1897),  pp.  xxiv  ff. •  also  Harnack,  Texte 
und  Untersuchungen,  new  series  (1900),  v.  3,   100 — 106. 

3.  THE  ACTS  OF  PAUL.  About  the  time  (160 — 170)  of  the 
publication  of  the  Gnostic  Acts  of  Peter,  Catholic  Acts  (npasetQ)  of 
Paul  were  put  in  circulation.  Eusebius1  places  them  among  the 
avzasyofjisua  of  the  New  Testament ;  Origen 2  cites  them  twice  in  a 
friendly  and  approving  way;  Hippolytus3  treats  them,  without  specific 
mention  of  their  title,  as  a  well-known  and  accepted  historical  book. 
It  is  very  probable  that  the  Preaching  of  Paul  mentioned  in  the  De 
rebaptismate  (see  p.  98)  is  none  other  than  these  Acts  of  Paul. 
In  the  so-called  Catalogus  Claromontanus,  an  index  of  the  biblical 
books  made  about  300,  the  length  of  these  Acts  is  put  down  as 
3560  verses  or  lines.  In  the  Stichometria  attributed  to  Nicephorus, 
patriarch  of  Constantinople  (806 — 815),  they  are  set  down  as  containing 
3600  lines.  It  is  only  lately  that  more  light  has  been  thrown  on  such 
high  figures  by  the  discovery  that  the  Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecla  (see  p.  102) 
and  the  apocryphal  Correspondence  of  Paul  and  the  Corinthians  (§31,3) 
are  in  reality  parts  of  the  original  Acts  of  Paul,  although  at  a  very 
early  date  these  two  sections  took  on  an  independent  form.  The  proof 
of  this  was  furnished  in  1897  by  Schmidt's  discovery  at  Heidelberg,  in 
a  papyrus- roll,  of  fragments  of  a  Coptic  version  of  the  Acts  of  Paul. 
Confirmation  was  soon  forthcoming  from  the  so-called  Caena  Cypriani, 
a  biblical  cento,  probably  of  the  fifth  century,  for  the  composition  of 
which,  as  Harnack  saw  (1899),  not  only  were  the  biblical  writings  used, 
but  also  the  Acts  of  Paul  in  their  complete  form.  Besides  these  two 
larger  sections  of  the  Acts  of  Paul,  there  has  also  been  preserved 
the  conclusion  of  this  lengthy  work,  its  martyrdom-narrative,  both  in 
the   Greek   original   (fmpxöpwv    zoo    ayiou   dnooroXou  IlauXoo)    and   in 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  iii.  3,   5 ;   25,  4. 

2  Comm.   in  Joan.,   xx.    12;   De  princ,   i.   2,   3. 

3  Comm.  in  Dan.,  iii.   29,   4,  ed.  Bonwelsch. 


§    3°-       APOCRYPHAL    ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES.  IOI 

several  translations:  Latin,  Slavonic,  Coptic  (Sahidic),  Arabic,  Ethiopia 
Hitherto  only  fragments  of  the  Latin  translation,  in  its  original  form, 
have  been  recognized  and  published;  its  complete  text  has  reached 
us  in  a  later  recension.  In  the  more  recent  manuscripts  of  this 
text  it  is  ascribed  to  Pope  Linus  (see  p.  99),  while  the  earlier  manu- 
scripts present  it  as  an  anonymous  work :  Passio  Sancti  Pauli  apostoli. 
According  to  this  narrative  Paul  preached  at  Rome  with  great  suc- 
cess concerning  the  Eternal  King,  Jesus  Christ,  and  thereby  irritated 
Nero  who  issued  edicts  of  persecution  against  the  «soldiers  of  the 
Great  King».  By  the  Emperor's  order  Paul  was  beheaded.  That 
these  Acts  were  of  Catholic  origin  is  proven  by  the  evidence  of  those 
who  first  mention  them :  Hippolytus,  Origen,  and  Eusebius.  Moreover 
no  traces  of  heresy,  especially  of  Gnosticism,  have  been  found  in 
the  extant  fragments. 

For  the  Greek  and  the  two  Latin  texts  of  the  martyrdom  of  Paul,  cf. 
Lipsius,  in  Acta  apost.  apocr.,  edd.  Lipsius  et  Bonnet,  part  i,  1891  •  Lipsius 
had  already  made  known  the  Greek  text  (ib.  104 — 117)  and  the  earlier 
Latin  text  (ib.  105 — 113)  (passionis  Pauli  fragmentum),  in  Jahrbücher  für 
prot.  Theol.  (1886),  xii.  86  ff.  (cf.   175  ff.)  and  334  sq.  (cf.  691  ff.). 

The  later  Latin  text  {Lipsius  and  Bonnet,  23 — 44)  was  already  well- 
known;  cf.  Lipsius,  proleg. ,  pp.  xiv  ff. ,  and  ib.,  pp.  lvi  ff..  for  the  Sla- 
vonic, Coptic,  Arabic,  and  Ethiopic  versions.  The  Acts  of  Paul  are  dis- 
cussed in  detail  by  Lipsius,  Die  apokryphen  Apostelgeschichten  und  Apostel- 
legenden, ii.  1,  85 — 284,  and  in  the  Supplement,  pp.  34 — 47.  Zahn,  Gesch. 
des  neutestament.  Kanons,  ii.  2,  865 — 891.  On  the  original  form  and  the 
remnants  of  the  Acts  of  Paul  cf.  C.Schmidt,  in  Neue  Heidelberger  Jahrbücher 
(1897),  vii.  117 — 124;  Harnack,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  xix,  new 
series  (1899),  iv.  3  b;  P.  Corssen,  Die  Urgestalt  der  Paulusakten,  in  Zeitschr. 
für  die  neutestamentl.  Wissensch.  (1903),  iv.  22 — 47  ;  C.  Schmidt,  Acta  Pauli, 
aus  der  Heidelberger  koptischen  Papyrus-Handschrift,  n.  1,  Übersetzung, 
Untersuchungen  und  koptischer  Text,  Leipzig,  1904,  lvi,  240,  80  pp.  A 
photographic  facsimile  of  the  Coptic  text  was  published  by' Schmidt  (ib., 
1904).    See  Shahan,  Cath.  Univ.  Bulletin  (Washington,   1905),  x.  484 — 488. 

4.  THE  ACTS  OF  peter  AND  PAUL.  The  origin  of  these  Acts  is 
very  obscure.  Unlike  the  two  preceding,  they  contain  the  later 
history  of  both  the  Apostles  and  tend  to  show  a  close  homogeneity 
and  a  continuous  concord  between  the  two  Apostles.  Lipsius  be- 
lieves that  they  also  were  composed  in  the  second  century.  There  are, 
however,  only  very  obscure  traces  of  them  before  the  fifth  century, 
in  Hippolytus !,  Cyril  of  Jerusalem2,  Asterius  ofAmasea3,  and  Sulpicius 
Severus4.  The  work  was  surely  of  Catholic  origin,  and  probably 
compiled  with  the  purpose  of  withdrawing  from  the  hands  of  the 
faithful  the  heretical  Acts  of  Peter  (see  p.  98).  All  extant  fragments 
show  evidence  of  a  later  revision.     The  Greek  texts,  usually  entitled 

1  Philos.,  vi.  20.  2  Catech.  6,   c.    15. 

3  Horn.  8  in  SS.  Apost.   Petr.   et  Paul.,  sub  fine;  cf.  Migne,  PG.,  xl.   297  ff. 

4  Chron.  ii.   28. 


I02  FIRST    PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 

7Tpd$£tQ  twu  ay'uov  anoGTolcov  ffirpoo  xai  IlaüÄou,  relate  the  journey 
of  St.  Paul  to  Rome  and  the  martyrdom  of  both  Apostles.  One 
Greek  codex  (Marcianus ,  saec.  xvi)  relates  only  the  martyrdom 
( papropiov  tcov  aj'uov  aizoavoXoiv  Uirpou  xai  IlaöÄoi)),  and  is  silent  as 
to  the  Roman  journey;  even  in  its  account  of  the  former  it  öfters 
a  text  that  differs  much  from  the  other  Greek  codices,  while  it 
presents  a  close  affinity  with  an  early  Latin  version,  which  also 
omits  the  journey  to  Rome  and  is  likewise  entitled  Passio  sancto- 
rum apostolorum  Petri  et  Pauli.  There  are  extant  also  an  Old- 
Slavonic  and  an  Old -Italian  version.  It  seems  certain  that  the 
basis  of  the  journey-narrative  is  found  in  the  story  of  St.  Paul's  journey 
from  the  island  of  Cauda  to  Rome  described  in  the  canonical  Acts 
of  the  Apostles  (cc.  xxvii — xxviii).  In  its  account  of  the  martyrdom 
of  the  Apostles  this  work  profited  much  by  the  similar  narrative  in 
the  Acts  of  Peter. 

The  Greek  text  of  the  martyrdom  of  both  Apostles  and  of  the  journey  to 
Rome  was  edited  by  J.  C.  Thilo,  in  two  programmes  of  the  University  of  Halle, 
1837 — 1838;  by  C.  Tischendorf,  in  his  Acta  apostol.  apocrypha,  pp.  1 — 39; 
by  Lipsius,  in  Acta  apost.  apocr.,  edd.  Lipsius  and  Bonnet,  i.  178 — 222. 
In  addition  Lipsius  reprinted  (ib.,  pp.  118 — 176)  the  second  recension  of 
the  Greek  text,  minus  the  journey-narrative  (codex  Marcianus  saec.  xvi),  also 
the  early  Latin  version  of  the  martyrdom  (pp.  119 — 177),  and  a  later  Latin 
compilation  on  the  martyrdom  of  the  two  Apostles  (pp.  223 — 234).  For 
the  early-Slavonic  and  Italian  versions  cf.  ib.,  proleg.  pp.  lxxxix  ff.,  and 
Lipsius,  Die  apokryphen  Apostelgeschichten  und  Apostellegenden,  ii.  1,  284 
to  390.  Supplement,  pp.  47 — 61.  P.  Vetter,  Die  armenischen  apokryphen 
Apostelakten,  ii :  Die  Akten  der  Apostel  Petrus  und  Paulus,  in  Oriens  Christi- 
anus (1903),  pp.  16—55. 

5.  THE  ACTS  OF  PAUL  AND  THECLA.  These  Acts  have  come  to  us 
down  in  their  Greek  text,  likewise  in  several  Latin  translations  and  in 
Syriac,  Armenian,  Slavonic,  and  Arabic  recensions.  In  the  manu- 
scripts the  Greek  text  bears  the  title  7rpd$£cg  Ilaulou  xai  9£xXtjQ9  also 
papTijpwv  TTJQ  äyiaq  TrporopdpTüpoQ  6£x),7]q  ,  or  the  like.  Jerome 
calls  it  Ttepiodoi  Pauli  et  Theclae1.  The  object  of  the  very  simple 
and  unpretending  tale  is  the  story  of  Thecla ,  a  noble  virgin  of 
Iconium  in  Lycaonia.  Fascinated  by  the  preaching  of  St.  Paul  she 
resolves  on  abandoning  her  betrothed  to  serve  God  in  the  state  of 
virginity.  For  this  decision  she  suffers  many  torments  and  persecutions. 
After  her  miraculous  liberation  she  devotes  herself  to  the  preaching  of 
the  Gospel,  with  the  consent  and  by  the  commission  of  the  Apostle. 
There  is  probably  an  historical  nucleus  to  the  narrative  —  the  conver- 
sion and  martyrdom  of  a  Thecla  of  Iconium,  the  portrait  of  St.  Paul 
(c.  3),  the  meeting  of  Thecla  with  Queen  Tryphaena  (cc.  27  fr.,  39  ff.). 
But  the  truth  is  overlaid  with  much  that  is  fanciful;  in  general  these 
Acts  are  a  highly  romantic  work  of  imagination.    The  historical  frame- 

1  De  viris  illustr.,  c.   7. 


§    3°.      APOCRYPHAL    ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES.  IO3 

work  of  the  narrative  is  furnished  by  the  so-called  first  journey  of 
St.  Paul,  described  in  the  canonical  Acts  (cc.  xiii — xiv),  and  many  of 
the  characters  that  figure  in  it  are  drawn  from  the  Second  Epistle  to 
Timothy.  Since  the  third  and  fourth  centuries,  the  Thecla-legend, 
originally  vouched  for  by  these  Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecla,  spread 
widely  throughout  the  whole  Church.  Tertullian  relates *  that  they 
were  composed  by  a  priest  of  Asia  Minor  who  was  possessed  by 
a  fanatical  admiration  for  St.  Paul.  For  this  action  the  priest  was 
deposed  from  his  office.  Jerome  repeats  (1.  c.)  the  statement  of  Ter- 
tullian, with  the  addition  that  the  judgment  of  the  priest  took  place 
in  the  presence  of  the  Apostle  John  (apud  Joannem),  an  assertion 
which  is  surely  erroneous.  It  has  been  lately  shown  (see  p.  ioo)  that 
the  Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecla  are  only  a  fragment  of  the  Acts  of 
Paul;  hence  they  were  composed  about  160 — 170.  It  is  quite  cre- 
dible that  the  Acts  of  Paul  were  written  by  a  Catholic  priest;  he 
was  punished,  not  so  much  because  he  put  forth  unecclesiastical 
doctrine,  as  because  he  gave  currency  to  historical  falsehoods. 

The  Greek  text  of  the  Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecla  is  found  in  J.  E.  Grabe, 
.Spicilegium  SS.  Patrum  ut  et  haereticorum,  Oxford,  1698,  i.  95 — 119  (and 
thence  in  Gallandi,  Bibl.  vet.  Patr.,  Venice,  1765,  i.  177 — 191);  Tischen- 
dorf,  Acta  apost.  apocr.,  pp.  40 — 63.  Lipsius,  Acta  apost.  apocr. ,  edd. 
Lipsius  et  Bonnet ,  i.  235 — 272.  There  are  in  print  three  ancient  Latin 
versions  of  the  Acts ,  one  in  the  collection  of  Legends  of  the  Saints, 
published  at  Milan  in  1476  by  B.  Mombritius  (without  title  or  pagination),  a 
second  in  Grabe  1.  c,  pp.  120 — 127  (Gallandi  1.  a),  the  third  in  Bibliotheca 
Casinensis  iii,  (1877),  Florileg.  271 — 276.  O.  v.  Gebhardt,  Passio  S.  Theclae 
virginis.  Die  lateinische  Übersetzung  der  Acta  Pauli  et  Theclae,  nebst 
Fragmenten,  Auszügen  und  Beilagen  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  new 
series,  vii.  2),  Leipzig,  1902.  W.  Wright  published  and  translated  the  Syriac 
version  of  these  Acts  in  his  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  London, 
1871,  i.  127  —  169  (Syriac);  ii.  116 — 145  (English).  The  Armenian  version 
was  translated  into  English  by  F.  C.  Conybeare,  The  Apology  and  Acts 
of  Apollonius  and  other  Monuments  of  Early  Christianity,  London,  1894; 
2.  ed.  1896.  For  a  Slavonic  and  an  Arabic  translation  of  the  Acts  cf. 
Lipsius  1.  c,  proleg.,  p.  Gil.  C.  Schlau,  Die  Akten  des  Paulus  und  der 
Thekla  und  die  ältere  Thekla-Legende,  Leipzig,  1877.  Lipsius,  Die  apo- 
kryphen Apostelgeschichten,  ii.  1,  424 — 467;  Supplement,  pp.  61  sq.  104. 
A.  Rey ,  fitude  sur  les  Acta  Pauli  et  Theclae  et  la  legende  de  Thecla, 
Paris,  1890.  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  ii.  2,  892 — 910. 
Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  i.  136  —  138  (Preuschen)\  ii.  1, 
493 — 505.  W.  M.  Ramsay,  The  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire  before 
A.D.  170,  2.  ed.,  London,  1893,  pp.  375 — 428.  Ld.,  A  Lost  Chapter  of 
Early  Christian  History  (Acta  Pauli  et  Theclae),  in  Expositor,  1902, 
pp.  278  — 295.  Cf.  y.  Gwynn,  Thecla,  in  Diet,  of  Christ.  Biogr.  (London, 
1887),  iv.  882—896. 

6.  THE  ACTS  OF  ANDREW.  Eusebius2  is  the  first  to  mention  Acts 
(npaqeiQ)  of  the  Apostle  Andrew,  observing  that  they  were  used  only 
by  «heretics»,    Gnostics  perhaps,  or  Manichseans    according  to  other 

1  De  bapt.,   c.    17.  2  Hist,  eccl.,  iii.   25,   6. 


104  FIRST    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

writers  k  The  work  was  held  in  high  esteem  by  the  Priscillianists  2.  Pope 
Innocent  I.  says3  that  its  authors  were  the  «philosophers»  Nexocharides 
(Xenocharides?)  and  Leonidas.  Possibly  he  may  have  found  this  state- 
ment in  the  Acts  themselves,  though  some  have  seen  in  these  names 
a  distortion  of  the  name  of  Leucius  Charinus  (§  28,  3).  The  Acts  are 
certainly  of  Gnostic  origin  and  Were  probably  written  in  the  latter  half 
of  the  second  century,  according  to  Lipsius  by  the  author  of  the  Gnostic 
Acts  of  Peter  (see  p.  98)  and  the  Gnostic  Acts  of  John  (see  p.  105). 
Some  fragments  of  the  original  Acts  of  Andrew  have  been  preserved 
in  citations  and  narratives  of  ecclesiastical  writers,  e.  g.  the  story  of  a 
certain  Maximilla  related  by  Evodius  of  Uzalum4,  and  the  prayer  of 
Andrew  upon  the  Cross  related  by  the  pseudo- Augustine 5.  Lengthy 
fragments  of  this  work,  which  was  apparently  an  extensive  one,  have 
reached  us  in  recensions  executed  by  Catholic  hands.  Among  the 
printed  fragments  is  a  Greek  text  entitled  7rpd$£iQ  'Avdpiou  xat 
MaT&eia  b\q  tyjv  ltdllv  twv  dv$pcü7ro<pdya)v.  It  is  also  found  in  several 
translations:  Syriac,  Coptic  (Sahidic),  Ethiopic,  and  Anglo-Saxon. 
Andrew  frees  miraculously  his  fellow- Apostle  Matthias  who  was  held  in 
prison  by  the  Anthropophagi.  After  suffering  grievous  torments  he 
preaches  the  Gospel  successfully  to  his  captors.  Here  the  narration 
breaks  off  quite  abruptly,  only  to  be  resumed  and  carried  on  in  a 
second  Greek  fragment  entitled  Tipd^etq  tcov  dyicov  dnoarolcov  IHrpoo 
xat  Avdpea,  preserved  also  in  Slavonic  and  Ethiopic.  Its  subject  is 
the  happy  issue  soon  vouchsafed  to  the  mission  of  the  two  Apostles 
(at  once  companions  and  brothers)  in  the  «city  of  the  Barbarians»  (zv 
tjj  TcöAei  tcüv  ßapßdpajv).  Both  «Anthropophagi»  and  «Barbarians» 
are  to  be  looked  for  about  the  shores  of  the  Black  Sea.  The 
ancient  Acts  make  Andrew  go  into  Pontus  from  Greece  (Philastr. 
1.  c.)  and  narrate  his  death  on  the  cross  at  Patrae  in  Achaia.  His 
death  is  the  theme  of  the  paproptov  too  dyiou  dizoaTolou  'Audpiou, 
which  we  possess  both  in  a  Greek  and  a  Latin  text.  It  pretends  to 
be  the  work  of  his  personal  disciples  and  eye-witnesses  of  the  facts, 
i.  e.  of  «priests  and  deacons  of  the  churches  of  Achaia»,  but  is 
probably  not  older  than  the  fifth  century.  Lipsius  is  of  opinion 
that  the  Greek  text  is  the  original  and  the  Latin  a  translation, 
but  Bonnet  is  doubtless  right  in  maintaining  that  the  Latin  is  the 
original,  and  he  distinguishes  two  Greek  versions. 

The  «Acts  of  Andrew  and  Matthias  in  the  City  of  the  Anthropophagi» 
were  edited  in  Greek  by  Thilo,  in  a  program  of  the  University  of  Halle 
in  1846,  and  by  Tischendorf,  in  Acta  apost.  apocr.,  pp.  132 — 166;  cf.  the 
Appendix  in  Tischendorf,  Apocalypses  apocr.,  pp.  139 — 141.    For  the  various 

1  Efiiph.,  Haer.,  47,   1  ;   61,    1  ;   63,  2.     Philastr.,  De  haeres.,  c.  88. 

2  Turib.,  Ep.  ad  Idac.  et  Cepon.,   c.   5.  3  Ep.  6  ad  Exsup.,  c.   7. 

4  De  fide  contra  Manichaeos,   c.  38. 

5  De  vera  et  falsa  poenitentia,  c.  8,   22. 


§    30.      APOCRYPHAL   ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES.  105 

versions  cf.  Lipsius ,  Die  apokryphen  Apostelgeschichten,  i.  546  ff.,  and 
Supplement,  pp.  259  ff.  The  «Acts  of  the  holy  Apostles  Peter  and  Andrew» 
were  published  in  Greek  by  Tischendorf,  Apocal.  apocr. ,  pp.  161 — 167. 
For  the  versions  cf.  Lipsius,  1.  c,  i.  553.  The  «Martyrdom  of  the  holy 
Apostle  Andrew»  was  published  in  Greek  by  C.  Chr.  Woog,  Leipzig,  1749 
[Gallandi ,  Bibl.  vet.  Patr.,  Venice,  1765,  pp.  152 — 165),  and  by  Tischen- 
dorf,  Acta  apost.  apocr.,  pp.  105 — 131.  An  Italian  version  from  the  Greek 
was  brought  out  by  M.  Mallio,  Venice,  1797,  and  Milan,  1882.  The  Latin 
text  of  these  Acts  was  already  printed  by  Mombritius  (see  p.  103),  in  his 
Leggendario,  and  has  since  been  often  reprinted  (cf.  Gallandi,  1.  c).  All 
the  aforenamed  Greek  and  Latin  texts,  with  some  new  pieces,  including 
a  long  Greek  fragment  «Ex  actis  Andreae»  (38 — 45)  were  edited  by 
Bonnet,  in  the  Acta  apost.  apocr.  of  Lipsius  and  Bonnet  (1898),  ii.  1,  1 
to  127.  In  Lipsius,  1.  c,  i,  545  ff. ,  there  is  a  discussion  of  more  recent 
recensions  of  the  legend  of  Andrew.  Three  works  quoted  by  Lipsius 
from  the  manuscripts  have  since  been  published  by  Bo7inet,  in  Analecta 
Bollandiana  (1894),  xiii.  309 — 378,  and  separately  in  Supplementum  codicis 
apocryphi,  Paris,  1895,  ii;  Acta  Andreae  cum  laudatione  contexta  (Greek) \ 
Martyrium  Andreae  (Greek);  Passio  Andreae  (Latin).  For  the  Slavonic 
version  of  the  Acts  of  Andrew  cf.  M.  N.  Speranskiy,  The  Apocryphal 
Acts  of  the  Apostle  Andrew  in  the  Old-Slavonic  texts  (Russian),  Moscow, 
1894.  On  the  Acts  of  Andrew  in  general  cf.  Lipsius,  1.  c,  i.  543 — 622, 
and  Supplement,  pp.  28 — 31. 

7.  THE  ACTS  OF  JOHN.  With  the  Acts  of  Andrew  Eusebius 
couples1  certain  Acts  (npa^eiq)  of  the  Apostle  John,  he  also  places 
them  among  the  heretical  works  forbidden  by  the  Church.  Other 
writers  say  that  both  the  Acts  of  John  and  the  Acts  of  Andrew 
were  in  use  among  the  Gnostices,  Manichaeans,  and  Priscillianists2. 
Very  probably  the  writer  is  identical  with  the  author  of  the  Acts 
of  Peter  (see  p.  98),  perhaps  of  those  of  Andrew  (see  p.  103). 
They  are  surely  of  Gnostic  origin,  and  are  as  old  as  the  second 
century;  for  Clement  of  Alexandria  cites  them3.  Their  original 
text  has  been  lost,  but  the  substance  of  their  contents  has  reached 
us  through  later  Catholic  recensions  of  the  Johannine  Legend. 
The  principal  subject  of  these  Acts  seems  to  have  been  the  journey 
of  John  into  Asia  (Minor)  and  the  miracles  performed  by  him  at 
Ephesus.  They  pass  lightly  over  his  (three  years')  exile  in  Patmos, 
are  very  diffuse  as  to  the  Apostle's  second  sojourn  at  Ephesus,  and  close 
with  the  story  of  the  peaceful  death  of  their  hero.  We  really  have  little 
information  about  the  Gnostic  Acts  of  John.  In  the  Acts  of  the  Second 
Council  of  Nicaea  (787)  are  preserved  three  genuine  fragments  of 
their  original  text.  One  of  them  refers  to  a  portrait  of  St.  John, 
and  was  quoted  by  the  iconoclastic  synod  of  Constantinople  (754) 
against  the  veneration  of  images.  The  other  two  were  quoted  at  the 
above   mentioned  Council  of  Nicaea  as  proof   of  the   heretical  origin 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  iii.  25,  6. 

2  Epiph.,  Haer.  47,  1.  Philastr.,  De  haeres.,  c.  88.  Aug.,  Contra  adv.  legis  et 
prophet...  i.   20,   39.      Turib.,  Ep.  ad  Idac.   et  Cepon.,  c.   5. 

3  Adumbr.  in   I   Io.   i.    1. 


IOÖ  FIRST    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

and  character  of  the  Acts  of  John,  the  source  of  the  pretended  apo- 
stolic testimony.  These  latter  excerpts  are  met  with  in  a  still  longer 
fragment,  first  published  by  James  under  the  title:  «Wonderful  Nar- 
ration (di7]Y7]<JiQ  ttaDjuacrTy)  of  the  deeds  and  visions  which  the  holy 
John  the  Theologian  saw  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ».  It  sets 
forth  with  insistency,  and  in  a  tasteless  way,  the  doctrine  of  a  merely 
docetic  body  in  Jesus  Christ.  Other  lengthy  fragments  may  be  attribut- 
ed, with  more  or  less  probability,  to  the  Gnostic  Acts  of  St.  Andrew, 
especially  a  narration  of  the  death  fjusTdazaaigJ  of  the  Apostle.  It  is 
extant  in  Greek,    Syriac,    Armenian,    and    other  languages. 

Collections  of  the  fragments  of  the  Gnostic  Acts  of  John  were  made 
by  Thilo,  in  a  programme  of  the  University  of  Halle  1847.  Cf.  Zahn,  Acta 
Joannis,  Erlangen,  1880,  pp.  219  —  252  (lx — clxxii);  Bonnet,  in  Acta  apost. 
apocr.,  edd.  Lipsius  et  Bonnet  (1898),  ii.  1,  151  —  216.  The  fragment  men- 
tioned is  edited  by  James  in  his  Apocrypha  Anecdota,  2.  series,  pp.  1 — 25; 
cf.  ix — xxviii.  The  greater  part  of  the  Acta  Joannis  in  Zahn  is  taken  up 
with  a  new  edition  of  the  Greek  narrative  of  the  deeds  of  the  Apostle 
John,  current  under  the  name  of  Prochorus  (cf.  the  canonical  Acts,  vi.  5), 
composed  probably  in  the  first  half  of  the  fifth  century.  For  two  Latin 
recensions  of  the  Johannine  legend  that  are  much  closer  a  kin  to  the 
Gnostic  Acts  than  the  Greek  text  is,  see  Lipsius,  Die  apokryphen  Apostel- 
geschichten, i.  408—431.  In  his  Monarchianische  Prologe  zu  den  vier 
Evangelien,  Leipzig,  1896,  pp.  73 — 91  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  xv.  1), 
P.  Corssen  has  constructed  out  of  the  writings  of  Jerome,  Augustine,  and 
others  an  Historia  ecclesiastica  de  Johanne  apostolo  et  evangelista,  which  he 
claims  was  current  in  the  third  century.  It  probably  never  existed,  at  least 
in  the  proposed  shape.  On  the  Acts  of  John  in  general  cf.  Zahn  1.  c, 
Einleitung,  pp.  in — clxxii;  Lipsius  1.  c,  i.  348 — 542,  and  Supplement, 
pp.  25 — 28,  also  Zahn,  in  Neue  kirchl.  Zeitschr.  (1899),  x.   191 — 218. 

8.  THE  ACTS  OF  THOMAS.  The  Acts  (npafetq)  of  the  Apostle  Thomas 
have  been  handed  down  in  a  better  text  and  a  more  complete  condition 
than  any  of  the  other  Gnostic  legendary  histories  of  the  Apostles.  It  is 
true  that  the  original  text  is  lost,  but  two  of  the  Catholic  recensions, 
in  Greek  and  Syriac,  date  from  a  very  early  period,  and  present  a 
relatively  clear  vision  of  the  Gnostic  framework  common  to  all.  The 
Syriac  text  was  published  by  Wright  in  1871,  the  Greek  by  Bonnet 
in  1883.  The  principal  difference  between  them  consists  in  the  larger 
number  of  Gnostic  features  that  have  faded  from  the  Syriac,  but 
have  been  preserved  in  the  Greek.  The  theme  of  the  Acts  is 
the  missionary  preaching  of  St.  Thomas  in  India.  The  Greek  text 
is  divided  into  twelve  Acts  (itpd^tz)  that  are  followed  by  the 
martyrdom,  while  the  Syriac  has  but  eight  Acts  and  the  martyr- 
dom ;  the  contents  are  substantially  identical,  however,  as  Acts  7 — 8 
in  the  Syriac  correspond  to  Acts  8 — 12  in  the  Greek  text.  They  are 
filled  with  many  kinds  of  odd  and  vulgar  miracles,  and  aim  mostly 
at  dissuading  their  readers  from  all  sexual  intercourse.  Von  Gut- 
schmid   has   shown  that  the    narrative    contains   both    legendary  and 


§    30-       APOCRYPHAL    ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES.  107 

historical  traits.  The  Indian  king-  Gundaphorus,  for  whom,  in  the 
second  Act,  Thomas  builds  a  palace  in  heaven,  is  the  Indo-Parthian 
king  Gondophares,  of  the  first  century  of  the  Christian  era,  otherwise 
known  only  by  coins  and  inscriptions.  The  hypothesis  of  von  Gut- 
schmid  that  the  entire  Thomas-Legend  is  only  a  story  of  Buddhistic 
missionary  preaching,  worked  over  in  a  Christian  sense,  still  remains 
a  pure  conjecture.  Some  poetical  pieces  scattered  through  the  nar- 
rative deserve  attention,  notably  an  Ode  to  Sophia,  said  to  have  been 
sung  by  Thomas  in  Hebrew  (i.  e.  Aramaic)  at  Andrapolis  on  the 
occasion  of  the  wedding  of  the  king's  daugther  {Bonnet,  8  ff.);  also 
two  solemn  prayers  said  to  have  been  uttered  by  Thomas  when 
baptizing  and  when  celebrating  the  Holy  Eucharist  {Bonnet,  20  36) ; 
finally  a  beautiful,  but  often  very  enigmatic  and  rather  irrelevant,  hymn 
on  the  fate  of  the  soul.  The  latter  is  found  only  in  the  Syriac  text 
(JVright ,  274  ff.).  All  these  poetical  compositions  are  decidedly 
Gnostic  in  character,  and  were  doubtlessly  written  in  Syriac,  perhaps 
by  Bardesanes.  It  seems,  therefore,  certain  that  the  Acts  were  not 
originally  composed  in  Greek  but  in  Syriac,  and  in  the  first  half  of 
the  third  century  at  Edessa,  by  some  disciple  of  Bardesanes.  We 
know  already  (see  p.  87)  from  Ephraem  Syrus  (cf.  §  28,  3)  that  the 
followers  of  Bardesanes  were  wont  to  circulate  apocryphal  Acts  of  the 
Apostles.  The  Thomas-Legend,  therefore,  found  its  readers  in  those 
circles  which  loved  to  read  the  Acts  of  Andrew  and  the  Acts  of  John, 
i.  e.  among  Gnostics,    Manichaeans,  and  Priscillianists 1. 

The  Syriac  text  of  the  Acts  was  published  with  an  English  translation 
by  Wright,  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  i.  171 — 333;  ii.  146 — 298. 
The  Greek  text  was  edited  by  Bonnet,  Supplementum  codicis  apocryphi, 
i.  1 — 95.  Some  fragments  of  the  Greek  text  were  first  edited  by  Thilo, 
Acta  S.  Thomae  apostoli,  Leipzig,  1823.  A  larger  number  appeared  in 
Tischendorf,  Acta  apost.  apocr.,  pp.  190 — 242,  and  in  Apocalypses  apocr., 
pp.  156  — 161.  In  Rhein.  Museum  für  Philologie,  new  series  (1864),  xix. 
161  — 183  (Kleine  Schriften  von  A.  v.  Gutschmid,  Leipzig,  1890,  ii.  332 — 364) 
A.  von  Gutschmid  discussed  the  facts  of  Indian  history  that  are  referred  to  in 
the  Thomas-Legend.  On  King  Gondophares  in  particular,  cf.  A.  von  Sallet, 
Die  Nachfolger  Alexanders  des  Großen  in  Baktrien  und  Indien,  Berlin, 
1879,  PP-  T57 — J66.  On  the  metrical  pieces  in  the  Acts  cf.  K.  Macke,  in 
Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1874),  lvi.  1 — 70.  A  separate  edition  of  the  Hymn 
on  the  Soul  was  prepared  by  A.  A.  Bevan,  Cambridge,  1897,  and  printed  in 
Texts  and  Studies,  v.  3.  M.  Bonnet,  Le  poeme  de  l'äme,  version  grecque 
remaniee  par  Nicetas  de  Thessalonique ,  in  Analecta  Bollandiana  (1901), 
xx.  159 — 164.  For  the  Acts  in  general  cf.  Lipsius,  Die  apokryphen  Apostel- 
geschichten, i.  225 — 347,  and  Supplement,  pp.  23 — 25,  also  Hamack, 
Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  ii.  1,  545 — 549.  Later  recensions  of  the 
Legend  are  treated  by  Lipsius  1.  c,  i.  240  ff.  Bonnet  (1.  c.)  re-edited  two 
later  Latin  forms  of  the  Legend:  De  miraculis  B.  Thomae  apostoli  (pp.  96 
to  132),  very  probably  by  Gregory  of  Tours,  and  Passio  S.  Thomae  apostoli 

1  Epiph.,  Haer.,  47,  1  ;  61,  I  ;  Aug.,  Contra  Faustum,  xxii.  79,  and  passim.  Twib., 
Ep.  ad  Idac.   et  Cepon,  c.   5. 


108  FIRST    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

(pp.  133 — 160).  For  a  later  Greek  recension  cf.  James,  Apocrypha  anec- 
dota,  2.  series,  pp.  27 — 45,  and  pp.  xxxn — xliv.  Bonnet  brought  out  the 
definitive  edition :  Acta  Philippi  et  Acta  Thomae,  accedunt  Acta  Barnabae, 
etc.,  ed.  M.  Bonnet,  Leipzig,  1903  (Acta  apost.  apocr.,  edd.  Lipsius  et 
Bonnet,  ii.  2).  A.  Mancini,  Per  la  critica  degli  «Acta  apocrypha  Thomae», 
in  Atti  della  R.  Accad.  di  scienze  di  Torino  (1904),  xxxix.   11  — 13. 

9.  THE  ACTS  OF  PHILIP.  The  Acts  of  Philip  are  very  seldom  men- 
tioned in  antiquity.  We  meet  them  for  the  first  time  in  the  so-called 
Gelesian  Decretal  De  recipiendis  et'  non  recipiendis  libris  under  the  title 
Actus  nomine  Philippi  apostoli  apocryphi.  Of  the  original  fifteen  Acts 
of  the  Greek  text  (nepiodot  (frd'nzTtoo  too  anoarolou)  we  possess  only 
fragments,  the  first  nine  and  the  fifteenth  Act.  The  latter  contains  the 
martyrdom  of  the  Apostle.  The  description  they  offer  of  the  missionary 
travels  of  the  Apostle  is  very  obscure  and  confused.  In  the  second 
Act,  Philip  reaches  the  «city  of  the  Athenians  called  Hellas»  ;  in  the 
third  Act  he  goes  from  Athens  to  Parthia,  thence  into  the  land  of  the 
«Candacii»  and  to  Azotus.  In  the  fifth,  sixth,  and  seventh  Acts  we  find 
him  again  in  Hellas  at  Nicatera.  In  the  eighth  Act  he  goes  to  the 
land  of  the  serpent-worshippers  feig  zyv  /copav  zwu  Vcptavwv),  i.  e.  to 
Hierapolis  in  Phrygia,  where,  in  the  fifteenth  Act,  he  meets  with 
death.  There  is  in  these  Acts  a  confusion  of  the  Apostle  Philip  with 
Philip  the  Deacon.  The  imaginary  journey  to  the  land  of  the  Can- 
dacii, and  the  action  of  the  Apostle  at  Azotus,  are  based  on  an  ignorant 
misinterpretation  of  the  canonical  Acts  (viii.  27,  Queen  Candace)  and 
the  sojourn  of  the  Apostle  Philip  at  Azotus  (Acts  viii.  40).  A  Syriac 
legend  concerning  the  doings  of  the  Apostle  Philip  distorts  still  more 
gravely  the  truth  of  these  chapters,  when  it  makes  the  Apostle  preach 
in  «the  City  of  Carthage  that  is  in  Azotus».  In  the  opinion  of  Lipsius 
we  have  in  the  Greek  text  of  these  Acts  a  Catholic  revision  of  a  lost 
Gnostic  original  composed  during  the  third  century.  Zahn  holds  them 
to  be  original  compositions,  made,  at  the  earliest,  about  the  end  of 
the  fourth  century. 

The  Greek  text  of  the  second  and  the  fifteenth  Acts  of  Philip  are  in 
Tischendorf,  Acta  apost.  apocr.,  pp.  75 — 104.  The  first  Act  and  the  Acts  3 — 9 
were  edited  by  P.  Batiffol,  in  Analecta  Bollandiana  (1890),  ix.  204 — 249. 
In  his  Apocalypses  apocr.,  pp.  141 — 156,  Tischendorf  published  two  later 
Greek  recensions  of  the  fifteenth  Act  (the  martyrdom).  Cf.  James ,  Apo- 
crypha anecdota,  pp.  158 — 163.  For  the  Syriac  text  of  the  Acts  of  Philip 
cf.  Wright,  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  i.  73 — 99;  ii.  69 — 92.  In 
general  cf.  Lipsius,  Die  apokryphen  Apostelgeschichten,  ii.  2,  1 — 53;  and 
Supplement,  pp.  64 — 73  94  260.  H.  O.  Stölten  and  Lipsius,  in  Jahrbücher 
für  prot.  Theol.  (1891),  xvii.  149 — 160  459 — 473.  Zahn,  Forschungen 
zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  (1900),  vi.  18 — 24. 

10.  THE  ACTS  OF  MATTHEW.  Of  these  Acts  only  the  conclusion 
or  martyrdom-narrative  has  reached  us.  At  Myrne,  the  city  of  the 
Anthropophagi,  Matthew  closed  his  glorious  career  in  the  service  of 


§    3°-       APOCRYPHAL    ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES.  109 

the  Gospel  by  a  martyrdom  of  fire,  at  the  order  of  King  Fulbanus. 
During  the  martyrdom,  and  after  the  death  of  the  Apostle,  astounding 
miracles  took  place  that  shook  the  obstinacy  even  of  the  king,  who 
was  converted  and  became  a  bishop.  Apparently,  the  narrative  is 
only  a  fragment;  Lipsius  deems  it  the  remnant  of  an  old  Gnostic 
tale  concerning  Matthew,  revised  in  the  third  century  by  Catholics. 
However,  both  the  date  and  the  Gnostic  origin  of  the  legend  are  still 
doubtful.     No  ecclesiastical  writer  of  antiquity  mentions   these  Acts. 

For  the  Greek  text  of  the  Martyrium  of  Matthew  cf.  Tische?idorf ,  Acta 
apost.  apocr.,  pp.  167  — 189.  Bonnet  has  added  an  ancient  Latin  recension, 
in  Acta  apost.  apocr.,  edd.  Lipsius  et  Bonnet  (1898),  ii.  1,  217 — 262.  In 
general  cf.  Lipsius,  Die  apokryphen  Apostelgeschichten,  ii.  2,  109  — 141, 
and  Supplement,  p.  76. 

1 1 .  THE  LEGEND  OF  THADD^US.  The  famous  Thaddaeus-Legend 
is  deserving  of  mention,  though  its  hero,  Thaddaeus  or  Addaeus,  was 
originally  held  to  be  one  of  the  70  or  72  disciples  (Luke  x.  1)  and 
only  at  a  later  date  was  confounded  with  the  Apostle  (Judas)  Thad- 
daeus. The  earliest  form  of  the  Legend  appears  in  Eusebius  J,  who 
avers  that  he  found  it  in  the  archives  of  Edessa 2.  Some  of  the  do- 
cuments in  these  archives  he  copied  word  for  word,  and  translated 
from  Syriac  into  Greek3.  They  were  the  correspondence  between 
Abgar,  toparch  of  Edessa,  and  Jesus,  together  with  an  account  of 
the  mission  of  Thaddaeus  to  Edessa.  In  his  Letter  to  Jesus,  Abgar 
(Abgar  V.  Ukkama,  or  «the  Black»  ca.  13 — 50)  begs  the  Lord  to 
visit  him  in  Edessa  and  cure  his  illness.  But  the  Lord  refuses,  since 
He  must  accomplish  His  work  in  Palestine  and  ascend  thence  to 
Heaven.  After  that  event,  however,  He  will  send  one  of  His  disciples 
who  will  free  Abgar  from  his  illness. 

The  narrative  goes  on  to  relate  that,  after  the  Ascension  of  the 
Lord,  «Judas  who  was  also  called  Thomas»,  sent  Thaddaeus,  one  of 
the  seventy,  to  Edessa.  Thaddaeus  cured  the  king  and  many  other 
sick  persons,  and  began  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  the  people  of 
Edessa.  In  1876  a  lengthy  Syriac  narrative  was  given  to  the  public  in 
which  there  was  question  of  the  conversion  of  Edessa  to  the  Christian 
faith.  It  claims  to  have  been  composed  by  a  certain  Labubna  and 
is  entitled  «Doctrine  of  the  Apostle  Addaeus».  Almost  contempor- 
aneously an  Armenian  version  of  the  Syriac  original  was  published.  In 
this  work  the  documents  cited  by  Eusebius  re-appear  in  almost  verbal 
agreement,  the  only  difference  being  some  minor  additions.  According 
to  the  newly  discovered  work  the  answer  of  the  Lord  to  Abgar  was  not 
given  in  writing,  but  orally.  Moreover,  before  mentioning  the  mission 
to  Edessa  of  Addaeus,  one  of  the  Seventy-Two,  this  work  interpolates 
a  short  account  of  the  portrait  of  Christ   said  to  have  been  painted 

1  Hist  eccl.,  i.   13.  2  Ib.,  i.   13,   5;  cf.  ii.   1,  6.  8. 

Ki   3  Ib.,  i.   13,   5   22. 


IIO  FIRST    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

by  Ananias,  the  messenger  of  Abgar.  Finally,  there  is  added  a 
lengthy  narrative  of  the  missionary  preaching  of  Addseus  in  Edessa. 
The  short  Greek  Acts  of  Thaddaeus,  certainly  not  written  before 
the  fifth  century,  insert  Thaddaeus  or  Lebbaeus  (one  of  the  Twelve), 
instead  of  Thaddaeus  or  Addaeus  (one  of  the  Seventy  or  Seventy- 
Two).  It  is  not  true,  as  Zahn  (1881)  contended,  that  the  Doctrina 
Addaei  represents  the  complete  text  of  the  Acta  Edessena  quoted 
by  Eusebius.  It  is  rather  a  later  enlargement  and  improvement  of 
that  legend.  According  to  Tixeront  (1888),  in  its  present  form  it 
cannot  be  earlier  than  390 — 430.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  not  pos- 
sible to  fix  more  exactly  the  date  of  the  Acta  Edessena.  Lipsius 
believes  that  the  legend  of  the  correspondence  between  Abgar  and 
Jesus  arose  about  the  time  of  the  first  known  Christian  king  of  Edessa, 
Abgar  VIII.  (Bar  Manu),  ca.  176 — 213.  There  is  no  doubt  of  the 
non-authenticity  of  the  correspondence.  A  sufficient  refutation  of  its 
claims  is  the  statement  of  St.  Augustine  that  genuine  Letters  of 
Christ  would  have  surely  been  most  highly  esteemed  from  the  be- 
ginning in  the  Church  of  Christ  *.  It  was  the  contrary  that  happened, 
for  this  very  correspondence  was  declared  apocryphal  in  the  so-called 
Gelasian  Decretal  De  recip.  et  non  recip.  libris 2. 

W.  Cureton  published  extensive  fragments  of  the  Syriac  Doctrina  Addaei, 
in  Ancient  Syriac  Documents,  London,  1864,  pp.  5  (6) — 23.  Later  G.  Phil- 
lips edited  the  complete  text :  The  Doctrine  of  Addai  the  Apostle,  London, 
1876.  Editions  of  the  Armenian  version  appeared,  1868,  at  Venice  and  at 
Jerusalem.  For  the  Armenian  version  cf.  A.  Carrüre,  La  legende  d'Abgar 
dans  l'histoire  d'Armenie  de  Mo'ise  de  Khoren,  Paris,  1895.  For  the  Greek 
ActaThaddaei  cf.  Tischendorf,  Acta  apost.  apocr.,  pp.  261 — 265,  and  Lipsius, 
Acta  apost.  apocr.,  edd.  Lipsius  and  Bonnet,  1,  273 — 278;  Acta  Thaddaei,  in 
Giornale  Arcadico  iv.  (1901),  vol.  vii,  55 — 63.  R.  A.  Lipsius,  Die  edesse- 
nische  Abgarsage  kritisch  untersucht,  Braunschweig,  1880.  Ld.,  Die  apo- 
kryphen Apostelgeschichten,  ii.  2,  178 — 200;  Supplement,  pp.  105 — 108. 
Th.  Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  Erlangen, 
1881,  i.  350 — 382.  IV.  A.  Wright,  Abgar,  in  Diet,  of  Christian  Biogr., 
London,  1877,  i.  5 — 7.  K.  C.  A.  Matthes,  Die  edessenische  Abgarsage  auf 
ihre  Fortbildung  untersucht  (Dissert,  inaug ),  Leipzig,  1882.  L.  J.  Tixeront, 
Les  origines  de  l'eglise  d'Edesse  et  la  legende  d'Abgar,  Paris,  1888. 
A.  Buffa,  La  legende  d'Abgar  et  les  origines  de  l'eglise  d'Edesse  (These), 
Geneva,  1893.  J.  Nirschl,  Der  Briefwechsel  des  Königs  Abgar  von  Edessa 
mit  Jesus  in  Jerusalem  oder  die  Abgarfrage  ,  in  Katholik  (1896),  ii.  17  ff. 
97  ff.  193  ff.  322  ff.  398  ff.  E.  v.  Dobschütz,  Christusbilder,  Leipzig,  1899 
(Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  xviii,  new  series,  iii),  pp.  102  ff.  158  ff.  29  ff. 
Ld.,  in  Zeitschr.  für  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1900),  xliii.  422 — 486. 

§  31.     Apocryphal  Letters  of  the  Apostles. 

I.  THE  LETTER  TO  THE  LAODICEANS.  The  reference  of  St.  Paul 
(Col.  iv.    16)   to   an   epistle   written   by   him   to    the   Laodiceans  has 

1  Contra  Faust.  Man.  xviii,  4;   cf.  De  cons,  evang.,  i.   7,    11  ff. 

2  Epistola  Jesu  ad  Abgarum  regem  apocrypha,  Epistola  Abgari  ad  Jesum  apocrypha. 


§    31.       APOCRYPHAL    LETTERS    OF    THE    APOSTLES.  Ill 

been  variously  interpreted  in  the  past.  It  furnished  the  occasion  for 
the  forgery  of  a  so-called  Epistle  of  St.  Paul,  Ad  Laodicenses,  which 
from  the  sixth  to  the  fifteenth  century  found  welcome  in  many  Latin 
biblical  manuscripts.  The  Latin  text  exhibits  a  very  inelegant  and 
obscure  diction  and  seems  to  be  a  translation  from  the  Greek,  although 
all  the  other  texts  of  the  Epistle  discovered  up  to  the  present  are 
derived  from  the  Latin.  This  curious  little  Letter  is  entirely  com- 
posed of  words  and  phrases  excerpted  from  the  genuine  Epistles  of 
St.  Paul,  and  impresses  the  reader  as  a  very  childish  and  harmless 
composition,  without  the  slightest  trace  of  heretical  doctrine.  The 
first  certain  mention  of  it  is  in  a  quotation  from  a  work  falsely 
attributed  to  St.  Augustine,  composed,  however,  very  probably,  in 
the  fifth  century  k  Possibly  it  is  the  same  as  the  Epistola  ad  Laodi- 
censes mentioned  by  St.  Jerome  2,  in  which  case  our  Epistle  would 
date  from  the  fourth  century  at  least.  An  Epistola  ad  Laudicenses, 
mentioned  in  the  Muratorian  Fragment  as  a  forgery  in  the  interest  of 
Marcion,  was  probably  the  canonical  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  revised  by 
Marcion  for  the  purpose  of  his  teaching,  and  entitled  Ad  Laodicenos%. 

Cf.  R.  Anger ,  Über  den  Laodicenerbrief  (Beiträge  zur  hist.-krit.  Ein- 
leitung in  das  Alte  und  Neue  Testament,  i),  Leipzig,  1843.  J-  B.  Light- 
foot,  St.  Paul's  Epistles  to  the  Colossians  and  to  Philemon,  2.  ed.,  London, 
1876,  pp.  281  —  300.  Th.  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  (1892), 
ii.  2,  566 — 585.  Anger,  Lightfoot  and  Zahn  exhibit  also  new  recensions  of 
the  text.  Anger  makes  known  (pp.  166  ff.)  two  Old-German  and  two  Old- 
English  versions,  also  one  Old-Bohemian  version,  and  a  re-translation  from 
the  Latin  into  the  Greek.  Lightfoot  gives  two  Old-English  translations  into 
Greek.  Carra  de  Vanx  published  an  Arabic  translation,  in  the  Revue 
Biblique  (1896),  v.   221 — 226. 

2.  THE  LETTER  TO  THE  ALEXANDRINES.  In  the  Muratorian  Fragment 
the  title  of  the  last  mentioned  document  is  followed  by  that  of  a  pseudo- 
Pauline  and  Marcionite  Epistle  Ad  Alexandrinos.  We  have  no  other 
knowledge  of  this  Letter  which  some  have  erroneously  supposed  to  be  the 
canonical  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  A  lesson  of  the  seventh-century  Sacra- 
mentarium  et  Lectionarium  Bobbiense,  entitled  Epistola  Pauli  apostoli 
ad  Colos.,  would  be,  in  the  opinion  of  Zahn,  a  fragment  of  the  Epistola 
ad  Alexandrinos.  But  his  hypothesis  is  over-bold,  and  very  questionable. 

Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  ii.  2,  586 — 592.  Harnack, 
Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  i.  ^^. 

3.  THE  CORRESPONDENCE  BETWEEN  PAUL  AND  THE  CORINTHIANS. 
In  the  Syriac  biblical  manuscripts  of  the  fourth  century  the  two  canonical 
Epistles  of  Paul  to  the  Corinthians  were  followed  by  a  third.  A  letter 
of  the  presbyters  of  Corinth  to  Paul  served  as  an  introduction  to  this 
latter  Epistle.     In  his  commentary  on  the  Pauline  Epistles  Ephraem 

1  Liber  de  divinis  scripturis  (ed.  Weihrich,  p.   516). 

2  De  viris  illustr.,  c.   5.  3   Tert.,  Adv.  Marc.,  v.    11,    17. 


112  FIRST    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

Syrus  treats  this  third  Epistle,  with  its  introductory  note,  as  quite  equal 
in  authority  to  the  genuine  ones.  In  the  fifth  century  it  was  translated 
from  Syriac  into  Armenian  and  into  Latin,  and  for  centuries  held  its 
place  in  the  biblical  manuscripts  of  the  Armenian  Church.  One  Armenian 
and  two  Latin  versions  are  extant ;  the  Syriac  text  has  not  yet  been 
discovered.  Zahn  and  Vetter  conjectured  that  the  Syrian  text  must 
have  been  a  translation  or  a  recension  of  a  Greek  text  that  was  itself 
only  a  part  of  the  apocryphal  Acta  Pauli ;  their  conjecture  was  destined 
to  be  borne  out  by  the  discovery  mentioned  in  §  30,  3.  The  contents 
of  the  correspondence  are  as  follows :  Stephen  and  his  co-presbyters 
at  Corinth  make  known  to  Paul  that  two  men,  Simon  and  Cleobius, 
had  been  preaching  at  Corinth  false  doctrines;  they  denied  the  divine 
creation  of  the  world  and  of  man,  the  divine  mission  of  the  prophets, 
the  virginal  birth  of  Jesus,  and  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  Their 
deceitful  and  perilous  discourses  had  shaken  severely  the  faith  of 
some  Christians.  In  the  Armenian  text  (but  not  in  the  Latin)  there 
is  here  inserted  a  document  by  which  it  appears  that  Paul  was  a 
prisoner  at  Philippi  when  he  received  the  letter  of  the  Corinthians, 
and  that  he  was  greatly  troubled  thereby.  In  his  reply  he  insists 
again  and  urgently  on  the  doctrine  which  he  had  always  preached  to 
the  Corinthians,  more  particularly  on  that  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
body.  The  idea  of  such  a  correspondence  seems  to  have  been 
suggested  by   1   Cor.  vii.   1   and  v.  9. 

On  the  subject  of  this  correspondence  there  are  two  exhaustive  mono- 
graphs: W.  Fr.  Rinck,  Das  Sendschreiben  der  Korinther  an  den  Apostel 
Paulus  und  das  dritte  Sendschreiben  Pauli  an  die  Korinther,  Heidelberg, 
1823,  and  P.  Vetter,  Der  apokryphe  dritte  Korintherbrief,  Vienna,  1894. 
Rinck  made  a  German  translation  of  the  Letters  from  eight  Armenian 
manuscripts,  and  pursued  at  great  length  the  history  of  their  diffusion  and 
of  their  use,  in  the  strange  hope  of  proving  them  to  be  genuine.  Vetter 
gives  a  literary-historical  introduction  to  the  problem  and  presents  a  new 
edition  of  all  hitherto  known  texts ;  he  also  makes  some  additions  to  them. 
The  Armenian  text  (with  a  German  version,  in  Vetter,  pp.  39 — 57)  was  first 
published  in  17 15  by  D.  Wilkins.  Of  the  two  Latin  translations  one 
(Vetter,  pp.  58—64)  was  edited  by  S.  Berger  (1891),  and  the  other  (Vetter, 
pp.  64 — 69)  by  E.  Bratke  (1892).  Vetter  gives  (pp.  70 — 79)  a  German 
version  of  the  Commentary  of  Ephraem  Syrus  (in  Old- Armenian)  on  these 
Epistles ;  the  original  Syriac  has  been  lost.  Cf.  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutesta- 
mentl.  Kanons,  ii.  2,  592—611,  1016— 1019;  Vetter,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr. 
(1895),  lxxvii.  622—633;  A-  Berendts,  in  Abhandlungen  AI.  von  Öttingen 
gewidmet,  München,   1898,  pp.   1 — 28. 

4.  THE  CORRESPONDENCE  BETWEEN  PAUL  AND  SENECA.  There 
is  extant  in  Latin  a  Correspondence  between  Paul  and  Seneca,  made 
up  of  eight  short  Letters  of  the  Roman  philosopher  L.  Annaeus  Seneca 
(f  65)  and  six,  mostly  still  shorter,  replies  of  the  Apostle.  They 
are  remarkable  for  poverty  of  thought  and  content,  rude  diction  and 
unpolished  style.    Seneca  admires  (Ep.  i.  7)  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  but 


§32.       APOCRYPHAL    APOCALYPSES.  U3 

is  offended  at  the  antithesis  between  their  noble  contents  and  the 
wretched  style  (Ep.  7);  he  advises  him  to  pay  more  attention  to 
expression  and  to  acquire  a  better  Latin  diction  (Ep.  13;  cf.  Ep.  9). 
This  correspondence  is  first  mentioned  by  Jerome  *  and  probably 
was  not  extant  before  the  fourth  century.  There  is  no  foundation 
for  the  hypothesis  that  the  correspondence  mentioned  by  Jerome  has 
disappeared,  while  the  extant  Letters  are  mediaeval  fiction ;  the  Latin 
text  is  original,  not  a  translation.  It  is  possible  that  the  author 
desired  to  popularize  among  the  higher  classes  of  Roman  nobility  a 
broader  view  of  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  The  legend  of  Seneca's 
conversion  to  Christianity,  on  which  this  correspondence  is  based, 
owes  its  origin  to  the  ethico-theistic  character  of  the  Stoic  philosopher's 
writings. 

This  correspondence  is  found  in  many  editions  of  the  works  of  Seneca, 
notably  in  the  stereotyped  edition  of  his  prose-writings  by  Fr.  Haase, 
Leipzig,  1852 — 1853-,  1893 — 1895,  iii.  476 — 481;  L.  A.  Senecae  opera  quae 
supersunt.  Supplementum,  ed.  Fr.  Haase,  Leipzig,  1902.  Separate  editions 
of  the  correspondence  were  brought  out  by  Fr.  X.  Kraus,  in  Theol. 
Quartalschr.  (1867),  xlix.  603 — 624,  and  E.  Westerburg,  Der  Ursprung  der 
Sage,  daß  Seneca  Christ  gewesen  sei,  Berlin,  1881,  pp.  37 — 50.  For  a 
criticism  and  commentary  on  the  Letters  cf.  J.  Kreyher,  L.  Annäus  Seneca, 
Berlin,  1887,  pp.  170 — 184;  Zah?i,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  ii.  2, 
612 — 621.  On  the  relations  of  Seneca  to  Christianity  cf.  W.  Ribbeck,  L.  Annäus 
Seneca,  der  Philosoph,  Hannover,  ^87 ;  Light  foot,  Epistle  to  the  Philippians, 
London,  1890:  St.  Paul  and  Seneca,  pp.  271 — ^ZZ\  J-  ^-  Mozley,  in  Diet, 
of  Chr.  Biogr.,  London,  1887,  Seneca,  p.  610.  M.  Baumgarten ,  Lucius 
Annäus  Seneca,  Rostock,  1895;  L.  Friedländer,  Der  Philosoph  Seneca,  in 
Histor.  Zeitschr.  (1900),  lxxxv.   193 — 249. 

§  32.     Apocryphal  Apocalypses. 

I.  THE  APOCALYPSE  OF  PETER.  The  eighth  century-manuscript 
to  which  we  owe  the  fragment  of  the  Gospel  of  Peter  (§  29,  5)  has 
preserved  also  a  long  fragment  of  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter.  It 
begins  in  the  middle  of  a  speech  of  the  Lord  and  relates  at  length 
a  number  of  visions.  Two  departed  brothers,  clothed  in  celestial 
glory,  appear  upon  a  mountain  to  the  Twelve  Apostles.  The  narrator, 
one  of  the  Apostles,  who  speaks  of  himself  in  the  first  person,  is 
permitted  to  behold  a  glimpse  of  heaven,  «a  very  great  space 
outside  this  world».  Directly  opposite  heaven,  but  hidden  from 
the  gaze  of  the  narrator,  is  the  place  of  punishment  for  sinners; 
the  description  of  the  tortures  endured  there,  depicted  in  glowing 
colours,  takes  up  the  remainder  of  the  narrative.  Although  the  narrator 
does  not  name  himself,  it  is  clear  from  intrinsic  evidence  that  he  wishes 
to  be  recognized  as  the  prince  of  the  Apostles.  The  identification  of 
the  work  is  made  through  a  quotation  from  it  in  Clement  of  Alexandria. 
He  introduces  part  of  a  passage  (verse  26)  with  the  words:  IlirpoQ 

1  De  viris  illustr.,  c.    12. 
Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  8 


114  FIRST    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

ev  T7j  airoxaXoipet  (p^ai1.  In  many  places  during  the  earlier  centuries, 
even  in  ecclesiastical  circles,  this  work  enjoyed  great  popularity. 
Not  only  is  it  often  quoted  by  Clement  of  Alexandria,  but  in  his 
Hypotyposes  he  judged  it  worthy  of  a  commentary  2.  In  the  Muratorian 
Fragment  (according  to  the  traditional  and  well-founded  exposition 
of  the  text)  this  Apocalypse  is  held  to  be  canonical,  although  it  is 
admitted  that  some  Christians  do  not  share  that  opinion  (quam  quidam  ex 
nostris  legi  in  ecclesia  nolunt).  Though  Eusebius 3  and  Jerome  4  rejected 
it  as  non-canonical,  it  continued  to  be  read  on  Good  Friday  in  some 
of  the  churches  of  Palestine  as  late  as  the  middle  of  the  fifth 
century  5.  It  was  probably  composed  in  the  first  half  of  the  second 
century;  the  place  of  its  origin  cannot  be  determined.  It  has  some 
points  of  contact  with  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter ;  hence  it  is  sup- 
posed that  pseudo-Peter  had  it  before  him,  and  that  he  drew  from 
it  the  impulse  to  pose  in  the  person  of  the  prince  of  the  Apostles. 
Antique-heathen  ideas  of  Hades  are  traceable  in  its  descriptions  of 
the  pains  of  hell,  particularly  Orphic  -  Pythagorean  traditions.  But 
their  presence  in  the  author's  mind  is  probably  explained  by  the  use 
of  Judaistic  literary  sources,  and  not  of  heathen  works. 

This  fragment  was  published  in  1892.  The  most  important  editions, 
translations,  and  recensions  of  it  are  quoted  in  §  29,  5.  Cf.  besides 
A.  Dieterich,  Nekyia,  Beiträge  zur  Erklärung  der  neuentdeckten  Petrus- 
apokalypse, Leipzig,  1893-  Harnack,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  etc. 
(1895),  xiii.  1,  71  —  73.  As  far  as  we  can  now  judge,  there  is  no  relation 
between  this  ancient  Greek  apocalypse  and  the  Apocalypsis  Petri  per 
dementem  (containing  explanations  alleged  to  have  been  given  by  St.  Peter 
to  St.  Clement  of  Rome  about  revelations  alleged  to  have  been  made  by 
Christ  to  Peter  himself),  preserved  in  Arabic  and  Ethiopic  manuscripts,  a 
miscellaneous  collection  scarcely  older  than  the  eighth  century ;  cf.  E.  Bratke, 
in  Zeitschr.  für  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1893),  i.  454 — 493.  There  is  an 
English  translation  of  the  latter  by  Andrew  Rutherford,  in  Ante-Nicene 
Fathers  (Am.  ed.  1885),  ix.  145 — 147. 

2.  THE  APOCALYPSE  OF  PAUL.  In  contents  the  Apocalypse  of  Paul 
is  close  a  kin  to  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter.  On  the  other  hand,  it  has 
reached  us  complete,  not  only  in  the  original  Greek,  but  in  a  series  of 
translations  and  recensions.  There  exists,  however,  no  reliable  edition 
of  this  work,  and  there  is  yet  uncertainty  as  to  the  mutual  relations 
of  the  texts  that  have  reached  us.  Very  probably  it  will  be  found 
that  the  Latin  translation,  first  published  by  James  in  1893,  is  a  much 
truer  witness  to  the  original  than  the  Greek  text  published  in  1866 
by  Tischendorf.  Important  service  is  rendered  to  the  critical  study 
of  the  Greek  text  by  an  ancient  Syriac  version.  In  this  Apocalypse 
we  are  introduced  to  the  mysteries  that  Paul  beheld  when  he  ascended 
to   the   third  Heaven,    «and  was  caught   up  into  Paradise  and  heard 

1  Eclog.  proph.,  c.  41.  2  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  14,    1.  3  Ib.,  iii.  3,  2;    25,  4. 

4  De  viris  illustr.,  c.    1.  5  Sozom.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.    19. 


§    32-       APOCRYPHAL    APOCALYPSES.  115 

secret  words  which  it  is  not  granted  to  man  to  utter»  (2  Cor.  xii.  2  ff.). 
It  pretends  to  be  the  work  of  Paul,  but  not  to  be  destined  for  the 
general  public.  It  opens  with  a  brief  statement  to  the  effect  that 
in  the  days  of  Theodosius,  and  by  the  direction  of  an  angel,  the 
work  had  been  discovered  beneath  the  house  in  which  Paul  lived 
while  at  Tarsus.  Through  the  Prefect  of  the  city  this  book  was 
delivered  to  the  emperor,  and  by  him  either  the  original  or  a  copy 
was  sent  to  Jerusalem.  In  the  company  of  an  angel,  Paul  leaves 
this  world,  beholds  on  his  way  the  departure  of  the  souls  of  the 
just  and  the  sinful,  and  arrives  at  the  place  of  the  just  souls,  in  the 
shining  land  of  promise,  on  the  shore  of  the  Acherusian  Lake,  out 
of  which  the  City  of  God  arises.  Thence  he  is  led  to  the  place  of 
the  godless  and  beholds  the  manifold  sufferings  of  the  damned. 
Finally  he  is  allowed  to  visit  Paradise,  where  Adam  and  Eve  had 
committed  the  first  sin.  The  narrative  exhibits  a  fertile  imagination, 
and  considerable  power  of  invention.  It  cannot  be  shown  that  it  is 
in  any  way  dependent  on  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter.  The  work  itself 
suggests  that  it  was  composed  in  or  about  the  time  of  Theodosius 
(379 — 395),  and  in  or  near  Jerusalem.  Traces  of  it  first  appear  in  the 
Tractates  or  Homilies  of  St.  Augustine  on  the  Gospel  of  John  (98,  8) 
delivered  about  416,  and  in  the  Church  History  of  Sozomen  (vii.  19) 
written  about  440.  St.  Augustine  judges  with  severity  the  deception 
practised  by  the  writer,  but  Sozomen  is  witness  that  in  other  circles, 
especially  among  the  monks,  the  work  met  with  approval.  During 
the  Middle  Ages  its  popularity  was  great,  as  is  seen  from  the  many 
versions  preserved:  Latin,  German,  French,  and  English. 

The  Greek,  or  rather  a  Greek  text  was  published  by  C.  Tischendorf, 
in  Apocalypses  apocryphae,  Leipzig,  1866,  pp.  34 — 69  (cf.  pp.  xiv — xvm). 
He  used  two  late  manuscripts,  one  of  which  was  a  copy  of  the  other.  The 
ancient  Latin  version  was  edited  from  an  eighth-century  manuscript,  by 
James,  Apocrypha  anecdota,  Cambridge,  1893,  pp.  1 — 42.  The  ancient 
Syriac  versions  have  reached  us  only  in  translation  of  the  same.  An  English 
translation  was  printed  by  J.  Perkins,  in  Journal  of  the  American  Oriental 
Society  (1866),  viii.  183 — 212.  Cf.  Andrew  Rutherford,  in  Ante-Nicene 
Fathers  (Am.  ed.  1885),  ix.  151  — 166.  From  another  manuscript  P.  Zingerle 
published  a  German  translation,  in  Vierteljahrsschrift  für  deutsch-  und  englisch- 
theologische Forschung  und  Kritik  (1871),  iv.  139 — 183.  For  later  Latin  and 
German  recensions  cf.  H.  Brandes,  Visio  S.  Pauli,  ein  Beitrag  zur  Visions- 
literatur, mit  einem  deutschen  und  zwei  lateinischen  Texten,  Halle,  1885. 
He  has  also  treated  of  French  and  English  translations,  in  Englische  Studien 
(1884),  vii.  34 — 65.  For  Slavonic  texts,  manuscripts  and  printed  works  cf. 
Bonwetsch,  in  Harnack ,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  i.  910  f".  —  The 
Apocalypse  of  Paul  is  to  be  carefully  distinguished  from  the  'Avaßaxixov 
riauXou,  or  Ascension  of  Paul,  a  second-  or  third-century  work  mentioned 
only  by  Epiphanius  (Haer.,  38,  2).  Like  the  former  it  claims  to  contain  the 
unspeakable  words  of  2  Cor.  xii.  2  ff.  But  it  was  replete  with  abominable 
things  (dpp7jToup7iac  qjudewv)  and  was  used  exclusively  by  Cainites  and 
«Gnostics».  The  so-called  Decretum  Gelasii  de  recip.  et  non  recip.  libris 
mentions  in  connection  with  this  Apocalypse  two  others  of  which  we  know 


Il6  FIRST   PERIOD.       FOURTH    SECTION. 

nothing  more:  Revelatio  quae  appellator  Thomae  apocrypha;  Revelatio  quae 
appellator  Stephani  apocrypha  [Thiel,  Epist.  Rom.  Pont.,  Brunsberg,  1868, 
i.  465).  The  so-called  Catalogue  of  the  Sixty  Canonical  Books  mentions 
Zayapiou  dxcox<£Xo^tc  The  so-called  Stichometria  of  St.  Nicephorus  also  makes 
mention  of  an  apocryphal  work  Zayapiou  izaxpoQ  Twavvou.  Berendts  is  of 
opinion  that  in  both  places  there  is  question  of  a  work  on  the  father  of 
John  the  Baptist,  written  in  Palestine  in  the  third  or  fourth  century,  for 
the  purpose  of  explaining  the  words  of  our  Lord  concerning  the  blood 
of  Zachary,  the  son  of  Barachias  (Mt.  xxiii.  35;  cf.  Luke  xi.  51).  Cf. 
A.  Berendts,  Studien  über  Zacharias-Apokryphen  und  Zacharias-Legenden, 
Leipzig,  1895.  Under  the  first  of  these  titles  we  may  probably  recognize 
a  spurious  Apocalypse  current  under  the  name  of  the  prophet  Zachary. 
P.  Macler ,  L' Apocalypse  arabe  de  Daniel,  publie'e,  traduite  et  annotee, 
Paris,   IQ04. 

FOURTH  SECTION. 

THE  ANTI-HERETICAL  LITERATURE  OF  THE  SECOND 

CENTURY. 

§  33.     Anti-Gnostics.     Their  lost  works. 

1.  PRELIMINARY  REMARKS.  Against  the  heresies  indicated  in  the 
preceding  pages,  the  representatives  of  the  Church  undertook  to  de- 
monstrate that  she  alone  was  in  exclusive  possession  of  the  truth  and 
that  only  her  teachings  were  justifiable.  The  doctrines  most  directly 
threatened  or  imperilled  were  naturally  those  defended  with  the  greatest 
warmth ;  thus  in  the  conflict  with  Gnosticism  the  belief  in  the  unity  of 
God  because  at  once  the  most  important  of  the  ecclesiastical  doctrines. 
At  the  same  time  the  sources  and  criteria  of  the  teachings  of  the  Church 
were  naturally  a  matter  of  discussion.  The  anti-heretical  was  therefore 
destined  to  greatly  surpass  the  apologetic  literature  as  a  propaedeutic, 
and  a  foundation  for  theology  or  the  science  of  faith.  The  anti- 
Gnostic  writings  of  the  apologists  Justin  Martyr,  Miltiades,  Melito, 
and  Theophilus  of  Antioch  have  been  lost;  indeed,  that  has  been 
the   general   fate  of  the   greater   part  of  the    anti-Gnostic   literature. 

2.  AGRIPPA  CASTOR.  A  writer  of  this  name,  otherwise  unknown 
work  to  us,  wrote  during  the  reign  of  Hadrian  (117 — 138)  a  polemical 
against  Basilides.    Eusebius  makes  mention  of  it  and  praises  it  highly1. 

For  the  «testimonia  antiquorum»  cf.  Routh,  Reliquiae  Sacrae,  2.  ed., 
Oxford,   1846— 1848,  i.  83 — 90  (Migne,  PG.,  v.   1269 — 1272). 

3.  HEGESIPPUS.  We  possess  more  copious  remains  of  the  «Me- 
morabilia» of  Hegesippus.  He  was  an  Oriental,  born  in  Syria  or  in 
Palestine  and  of  Jewish  origin,  according  to  Eusebius 2 ;  at  least  he 
was  acquainted  with  Aramaic.  An  interest  in  the  true  Christian 
teaching  (b  öpäög  loyog)  led  him  to  the  West,  and  as  far  as  Rome, 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.   7,  6 — 8;  Hieron.,  De  viris  illustr.,  c.   21. 

2  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.  22,  8. 


§    3$.       ANTI-GNOSTICS.       THEIR    LOST   WORKS.  I  lj 

where,  From  his  own  words  (though  there  is  a  dispute  as  to  their 
proper  translation),  we  learn  with  certainty  *  that  he  sojourned  under 
Pope  Anicetus  (about  155 — 166)  and  even  survived  the  reign  of  Pope 
Eleutherus  (about  174 — 189).  On  his  return  to  his  native  land  he 
wrote  five  books  that  Eusebius  sometimes  calls  nevze  auyypdpaza 
(1.  c.  iv.  8,  2)  and  again  ttbvzs  bizopvypaza  (1.  c.  iv.  22,  1 ;  cf.  ii.  23,  3). 
The  latter  title  is  used  by  Hegesippus  himself  (ii.  23,  8).  Though 
the  fragments  in  Eusebius  are  mostly  historical  in  character,  it  does  not 
seem  possible  to  reconcile  his  excerpts  with  the  judgment  of  Jerome2, 
according  to  which  the  work  of  Hegesippus  resembled  a  history  of 
the  Church.  It  must  have  been  more  like  a  polemical  treatise  against 
Gnosticism,  with  the  purpose  of  setting  forth  the  evidence  of  eccle- 
siastical tradition ,  particularly  its  close  dependency  on  the  uninter- 
rupted episcopal  succession.  Indeed,  Eusebius  places  the  venerable 
Oriental  first  among  the  orthodox  opponents  of  the  new  Gnostic 
heresy,  and  adds  that  he  had  set  up  a  memorial  in  the  simplest 
form  to  the  pure  tradition  of  the  Apostolic  preaching  (anXooazdzr} 
ouvzdset  Ypa<p9)Q)z.  Short  fragments  of  Hegesippus  are  found  also 
in  Philippus  Sidetes  and  Stephen  Gobarus. 

For  the  last  traces  of  the  complete  text  of  the  Memorabilia  cf.  Th.  Zahn, 
Der  griechische  Irenäus  und  der  ganze  Hegesippus  im  16.  und  im  17.  Jahr- 
hundert, in  Theol.  Literaturblatt,  1893,  pp.  495 — 497;  E.  Bratke,  ib.  1894, 
pp.  65 — 67.  The  fragments  extant  are  found  in  Routh,  1.  c,  i.  203 — 284; 
Migne,  1.  c.,  v.  1307 — 1328;  A.  Hilgenfeld,  Hegesippus,  in  Zeitschr.  fur 
wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1876),  xix.  177 — 229;  Th.  Zahn,  Forschungen  zur 
Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  etc.  (1900),  vi.  228 — 273.  For  the  hypo- 
thesis of  Lightfoot  that  the  Papal  catalogue  in  Epiphanius  (Haer.,  27,  6) 
is  taken  from  the  work  of  Hegesippus,  see  Funk,  Kirchengeschichtl.  Ab- 
handlungen und  Untersuchungen  (1897),  i.  373 — 390;  Zahn,  1.  c,  pp.  243 
to  246;  J.  Flamion,  in  Revue  d'histoire  ecclesiastique  (1900),  i.  672 — 678 ; 
y.  Chapman,  in  Revue  Benedictine  (1901),  xviii.  410 — 417;  (1902),  xix. 
13—30,  144— 170  (for  Lightfoot).  —  Th.  yess,  Hegesippos  nach  seiner  kirchen- 
geschichtlichen Bedeutung,  in  Zeitschr.  für  die  histor.  Theol.  (1865),  xxxv. 
3—95.  K.  F.  Nösgen,  Der  kirchliche  Standpunkt  Hegesipps,  in  Zeitschr. 
für  Kirchengesch.  (1877 — 1878),  ii.  193 — 233.  A.  Hilgenfeld,  Hegesippus 
und  die  Apostelgeschichte,  in  Zeitschr.  für  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1878), 
xxi.  297 — 330.  H.  Dannreuther ,  Du  temoignage  d'Hegesippe  sur  l'e'glise 
chretienne  aux  deux  premiers  siecles,  Nancy,  1878.  H.  S.  Lawlor,  Two 
notes  on  Eusebius,  in  Hermathena  (1900),  xi.  10 — 49. 

4.  RHODON.  During  the  reign  of  Commodus  (180 — 192)  this  writer, 
born  in  Asia  Minor  and  subsequently  a  disciple  of  Tatian  at  Rome, 
developed  an  apparently  manifold  literary  activity.  He  wrote  a  work 
against  the  sect  of  Marcion,  and  a  Commentary  on  the  Hexaemeron 
(dq  zrjv  ssarjpepov  bitopvirjpa),  perhaps  against  Apelles  (§  25,  7)  i.  In 
his  work  against  Marcion,  from  which  Eusebius  has  quoted  interesting 

1  Ib.,  iv.  22,   2 — 3.  2  De  viris  illustr.,  c.  22. 

3  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.  8,    1 — 2.  *  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  v.   13. 


I  1 8  FIRST    PERIOD.       FOURTH    SECTION., 

paragraphs,  Rhodon  made  known  his  intention  to  write  a  reply  to  the 
«Problems»  of  Tatian,  under  the  title  TzpoßX-qp.dTcov  sTzdvaetg.  Jerome 
has  wrongly  *  attributed  to  him  an  anonymous  work  against  the  Mon- 
tanists  (§  35,  2)  mentioned  in  Eusebius. 

Routh,  1.  c,  i.  435—446  [Migne,  1.  c,  v.   1 331  — 1338). 

5.  PHILIPPUS  OF  GORTYNA,  MODESTUS,  MUSANUS.  To  the  same 
period  belong  Philippus,  bishop  of  Gortyna  in  Crete,  who  wrote 
against  Marcion  2,  Modestus  who  exposed  the  same  errors  with  special 
skill3,  and  Musanus  who  addressed  a  very  grave  Letter  to  some  brethren 
who  had  apostatized  to  the  sect  of  the  Encratites  4.  At  a  later  date 
other  writings  circulated  under  the  name  of  Modestus5. 

6.  HERACLITUS  AND  OTHERS.  In  evidence  of  the  industry  of  «eccle- 
siastical men»  at  the  end  of  the  second  century  Eusebius6  mentions 
«the  work  of  Heraclitus  on  the  Apostle  (Paul),  and  that  of  Maximus 
on  the  origin  of  evil  and  the  creation  of  matter,  questions  much  dis- 
cussed by  heretics,  the  work  of  Candidus  on  the  Hexaemeron  and 
that  of  Apion  on  the  same  subject,  also  a  work  of  Sextus  on  the 
resurrection,  and  a  work  of  Arabianus  on  another  subject».  Jerome 
made  some  additions  to  this  passage  of  Eusebius7. 

The  mention  of  Maximus  as  a  Christian  writer  must  be  an  error ;  else- 
where (Praep.  evang.,  vii.  22)  Eusebius  quotes  a  lengthy  passage  from 
the  supposed  work  of  Maximus:  Routh,  1.  c,  ii.  75 — 121;  Migne,  1.  c,  v. 
1337 — 1356.  The  whole  paragraph  appears,  word  for  word,  in  the  work 
of  St.  Methodius  of  Olympus  on  free  will:  Bonwetsch ,  Methodius  von 
Olympus,  Schriften,  1891,  i.  15 — 38.  Probably  Eusebius  was  misled  into 
attributing  the  work  of  St.  Methodius  to  an  older,  real  or  imaginary, 
writer  named  Maximus.  Cf.  Th.  Zahn,  in  Zeitschr.  für  Kirchengesch. 
(1887 — 1888),  ix.  224'— 229.  %  A.  Robinson,  The  Philocalia  of  Origen, 
Cambridge,   1893,  pp.  XL — xlix. 

§  34.     Irenseus  of  Lyons. 

I.  HIS  LIFE.  Irenseus  was  born  in  Asia  Minor,  about  140,  in 
or  near  Smyrna,  it  is  supposed.  He  was  wont  to  repeat8  that  he 
listened,  as  a  child,  to  the  discourses  of  Polycarp,  the  aged  bishop 
of  Smyrna.  He  is  said,  on  later  evidence,  to  have  been  at  Rome 
when  Polycarp  died  (Febr.  23.,  155).  He  was  certainly  a  presbyter 
of  the  Church  of  Lyons  during  the  persecution  of  its  members  by 
Marcus  Aurelius.  On  that  occasion  the  clergy  of  Lyons  and  Vienne, 
most  of  whom  were  in  prison,  sent  Irenseus  (177 — 178)  to  Pope  Eleu- 
therus  at  Rome,  with  a  letter  that  treated  of  the  Montanist  troubles, 
and   in  which   they  styled  Irenseus    «one   who    was   zealous   for  the 

1  De  viris  illustr.,   cc.  37,   39. 

2  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.  25;   cf.  iv.   21,   23,   5.  3  Ib.,   iv.   25;   cf.   21. 
*  Ib.,  iv.  28;  cf.   21.              5  Hieron.,  De  viris  illustr.,  c.   32. 

6  Hist,  eccl.,  v.  27.  7  De  viris  illustr.,   cc.  46—51. 

8  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  v.  20,   5;  Iren.,  Adv.  haer.,   iii.  3,   4,   ed.,  Massuet. 


§    34-       IREN^EUS    OF    LYONS.  I  I9 

Testament  of  Christ»  h  On  his  return  he  was  made  bishop  of  Lyons 
in  succession  to  the  martyred  Pothinus,  and  as  such  devoted  his 
energies  mainly  to  the  overthrow  of  the  false  Gnosis.  During  the 
reign  of  Pope  Victor  I.  (189 — 198/199)  he  took  a  leading  part  in 
the  discussions  that  arose  about  the  Easter  celebration,  «doing 
honour  to  his  name  (Elpyvaioq)  and  bearing  himself  as  a  peacemaker 
(scpyvoTvoiogJ»,  says  Eusebius2.  The  date  of  his  death  is  unknown. 
According  to  a  tradition  first  met  with  in  Jerome3  he  suffered 
martyrdom  under  Septimius   Severus  (193 — 211). 

Ch.  E.  Freppel,  St.  Irenee,  Paris,  1861  \  3.  ed.  1886.  H.  Ziegler,  Irenäus, 
der  Bischof  von  Lyon,  Berlin,  1871.  R.  A.  Lipsius,  Die  Zeit  des  Irenäus 
von  Lyon,  inHistor.  Zeitschr.  (1872),  xxviii.  241 — 295.  A.  Gouilloud,  St.Irenee 
et  son  temps,  Lyon,  1876.  E.  Montet ,  La  legende  d'Irenee  et  l'intro- 
duction  du  christianisme  ä  Lyon,  Geneve,  1880.  E.  A.  Lipsius,  Irenseus,  in 
Diet,  of  Christ.  Biogr.,  London,  1882,  iii.  253 — 279.  Zahn,  Forschungen 
zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  etc.  (1891),  iv.  249 — 283;  (1900), 
vi.  27 — 40.   Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur  (1897),  ii.   1,  320 — 333. 

2.  THE  «AD VERSUS  HAERESES».  The  most  important  legacy  of 
Irenaeus  is  an  extensive  work  against  Gnosticism,  entitled  «Detection 
and  Overthrow  of  the  pretended  but  false  Gnosis»  (iXzyyoo,  xou 
ävarpoTtTj  ztjq  (peodajvopou  yvaxrecogj ,  usually  known  as  «Adversus 
Haereses» i.  It  is  unfortunate  that  we  no  longer  possess  the  ori- 
ginal Greek  of  this  work,  which  has  been  handed  down,  however, 
in  a  Latin  translation  that  was  executed  shortly  after  the  composi- 
tion of  the  original,  and  exhibits  a  most  conscientious  fidelity,  even 
a  slavish  literalness.  Fragments  of  the  Greek  text,  notably  the 
greater  part  of  the  first  book,  have  reached  us  through  citations 
from  it  made  by  later  writers,  Hippolytus,  Eusebius,  Epiphanius,  and 
others.  There  are  also  some  short  fragments  preserved  in  a  Syriac 
translation.  According  to  the  introduction  to  the  first  book  the 
work  was  begun  at  the  request  of  a  friend,  probably  a  bishop,  who 
wished  to  know  more  about  the  heresy  of  Valentine,  with  a  view 
to  its  refutation.  In  the  execution  of  his  enterprise  the  plan  seems  to 
have  grown  larger  as  the  author  advanced;  it  is  also  supposed  that 
a  considerable  period  of  time  elapsed  between  the  composition  of 
the  first  book  and  the  completion  of  the  fifth.  We  have  no  means 
of  fixing  more  definitely  the  periods  of  composition  of  the  separate 
books  of  this  work;  in  the  third  book  (iii.  3,  3)  Eleutherus  is  designated 
as  the  contemporary  bishop  of  Rome  (about  174 — 189).  Methodical 
disposition  of  the  material,  consecutiveness  of  thought,  and  pro- 
gressive exposition  are  to  a  great  extent  wanting  in  the  «Adversus 
Haereses».    The  first  book  is  mostly  taken  up  with   the  «detection» 

1  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  v.  4,   2.  2  Ib.,  v.   24,    18. 

3  Comm.  in  Is.  ad  64,  4  ff. 

4  Hiero?i.,  De  vir.  illustr.,  c.  35,  after  Ems.,  Hist,  eccl,  ii.  13,  5;  iii.  28,  6:  izpbq 
rag  alp itrst g. 


I20  FIRST   PERIOD.      FOURTH   SECTION. 

or  exposure  of  the  Gnostic  doctrines ;  the  other  four  are  devoted  to 
their  «refutation».  In  the  second  book  dialectico-philosophical  ar- 
guments predominate,  while  in  the  third  it  is  principally  ecclesiastical 
tradition  and  the  Holy  Scripture  that  the  author  invokes.  The  main 
scope  of  the  work  is  to  disprove  the  Gnostic  thesis  that  the  Creator 
of  the  world  is  another  than  the  Supreme  God ;  this  teaching  is  ex- 
pressly declared  (ii.  I,  i)  to  be  the  blasphemous  foundation  of  all 
Gnosis.  The  fourth  book  rounds  out  the  scriptural  proofs,  confirming 
with  the  sayings  of  the  Lord  {per  Domini  sermones,  iv.  praef.)  the 
previous  teaching  of  the  Apostles  (sententia  apostolorum).  Among 
the  sayings  of  the  Lord  are  understood  also  the  words  of  the  prophets 
(cf.  iv.  2,  3).  The  fifth  book  is  eschatological  in  character.  The 
doctrine  of  the  resurrection  ot  the  body  is  variously  defended,  and 
at  the  end  (cc.  32 — 36)  are  developed  the  Chiliastic  theories  peculiar 
to  Irenaeus.  His  description  of  the  Gnostic  systems  is  based  almost 
entirely  on  his  own  reading  of  their  writings  (§  25,  3).  He  is  also 
well-acquainted  with  such  other  ecclesiastical  writers  as  Ignatius, 
Polycarp,  Papias,  Justin  Martyr,  and  Hegesippus. 

For  the  latest  traces  of  the  Greek  text  of  the  «Adversus  haereses»  cf. 
the  study  of  Zahn  (§  $^,  3).  Fr.  Loofs,  Die  Handschriften  der  lateinischen 
Übersetzung  des  Irenäus  und  ihre  Kapitelteilung,  in  Kirchengesch.  Studien, 
H.  Reuter  zum  70.  Geburtstag  gewidmet,  Leipzig,  1888,  pp.  1 — 93,  se- 
parately printed,  Leipzig,  1890.  G.  Mercati,  Di  alcuni-nuovi  sussidii  per 
la  critica  del  testo  di  S.  Cipriano,  Rome,  1899,  pp.  100 — 107.  Id.,  Note 
di  litterature  biblica  e  cristiana  antica  (Studi  e  Testi,  v.),  Rome,  1901, 
pp.  241 — 243.  The  following  editions  are  based  on  an  independent  study 
of  the  manuscripts:  D.  Erasmus,  Basle,  1526;  Fr.  Feuardent ,  Cologne, 
1596  (reprinted  in  1639);  J.  E.  Grabe,  Oxford,  1702;  R.  Massuet,  Paris, 
1 7 10  (reprinted  Venice,  1734);  A.  Stieren,  Leipzig,  1848 — 1853;  IV.  W. 
Harvey ,  Cambridge,  1857.  It  is  admitted  that  by  far  the  best  edition 
is  that  of  Massuet,  reprinted  in  Migne,  PG.,  vii  (1857).  Some  new  frag- 
ments of  the  Greek  text  were  published  by  A.  Papadopulos-Kerameus ,  in 
ÄvdcXexta  ispoooXo[Aixix?js  0x0700X0717.?,  St.  Petersburg,  1891,  i.  387—389;  cf. 
J.  Haussleiter ,  in  Zeitschr.  fur  Kirchengesch.  (1893 — 1894),  xiv.  69 — 73. 
For  the  Syriac  and  Armenian  fragments  see  Harvey  1.  c.,  ii.  431 — 453, 
and  P.  Martin,  in  Pitra ,  Analecta  Sacra,  Paris,  1883,  iv.  17  sq.  292  ff. 
There  is  a  German  translation  by  H.  Hayd,  in  Bibliothek  der  Kirchen- 
väter, Kempten,  1872— 1873.  There  is  an  English  translation  of  the 
writings  of  Irenaeus  by  Roberts  and  Rambaut ,  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers 
(Am.  ed,  1885),  i.  315—578. 

3.  THE  «ADVERSUS  HAERESES»  CONTINUED.  For  Irenseus  the 
source  and  standard  of  faith  is  the  self-identical  apostolic  tradition  that 
is  continuous  in  the  Church.  The  unbroken  succession  of  the  bishops, 
the  representatives  of  the  ecclesiastical  magisterium  in  the  churches 
founded  by  the  Apostles,  guarantees  and  proves  the  apostolicity  of 
the  doctrine  taught  in  these  churches;  the  Apostles  appointed  as 
their  successors  only  «very  perfect  and  blameless  men»,  and  these 
in  turn  handed  down  to  their  successors  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostles 


§    34-       IREN^EUS    OF    LYONS.  121 

pure  and  undefiled  *.  As  it  would  be  too  tedious  to  enumerate 
in  such  a  work  the  official  succession  of  all  the  churches  (omnium 
ecclesiarum  enumerare  successiones),  he  holds  it  sufficient  to  prove 
that  «the  greatest  and  the  oldest  church,  the  one  well-known  to  all 
men,  founded  and  established  at  Rome  by  the  two  most  glorious 
Apostles  Peter  and  Paul»,  can  trace  back  the  list  of  its  bishops  to 
the  days  of  the  Apostles ;  its  teaching  can,  therefore,  rightly  lay  claim 
to  the  character  of  apostolicity :  «Ad  hanc  enim  ecclesiam  propter 
potentiorem  (potiorem)  principalitatem  necesse  est  omnem  convenire 
ecclesiam,  hoc  est  eos  qui  sunt  undique  fideles,  in  qua  semper  ab 
his  qui  sunt  undique  conservata  est  ea  quae  est  ab  apostolis  traditio» 
(III.  3,  2).  These  words  may  be  rightly  translated  as  follows:  «With 
this  church,  because  of  its  higher  rank,  every  church  must  agree, 
i.  e.  the  faithful  of  all  places,  in  which  (in  communion  with  which) 
the  apostolic  tradition  has  been  always  preserved  by  the  (faithful)  of 
all  places«.  Heretics  wrongly  maintained  that  the  Jesus  born  of 
Mary  was  another  than  the  Christ  who  descended  from  Heaven. 
«Otherwise,  Matthew  could  well  have  said  (i.  1 8):  'The  generation 
of  Jesus  was  in  this  wise.'  Foreseeing,  however,  the  perverters  of 
faith  and  forestalling  their  deceit,  the  Holy  Spirit  said  through  Matthew 
(Spiritus  Sanctus  per  Matthaeum  ait) :  'the  generation  of  Christ  was 
in  this  wise  (i.  18),  and  they  shall  call  his  name  Emmanuel'  (i.  22  f.), 
that  we  might  not  consider  him  a  mere  man,  and  believe  that  he 
was  another  than  the  Christ,  but  rather  know  that  He  is  one  and  the 
same»  (iii.  16,  2).  He  must  be  God  and  Man  in  the  same  person, 
«for  if  it  were  not  a  man  who  had  overcome  the  opponent  of  man- 
kind, the  enemy  would  not  have  been  vanquished  in  the  right  way 
(dixaicoQ).  And  again,  if  it  were  not  God  who  gave  to  us  our  sal- 
vation, it  would  not  have  been  firmly  assured  to  us  (ßsßacwg,  iii.  18,  7)». 
«The  Word  of  God  became  man  in  order  that  man,  taking  on  the 
Word  and  receiving  the  Sonship,  might  be  the  Son  of  God»  (iii.  19,  1 ; 
the  text  is  somewhat  uncertain).  Irenseus,  like  Justin 2,  recognizes  that 
the  Virgin  Mother  also  has  her  place  in  the  work  of  salvation.  «As  Eve, 
the  wife  of  one  man  (Adam),  though  herself  yet  a  virgin,  was  through 
her  disobedience  the  cause  of  death  to  herself  and  the  entire  human 
race,  so  Mary,  the  wife  of  one  man  (foreordained  for  her),  and  yet 
herself  a  virgin,  was  through  her  obedience  the  source  of  salvation 
(causa  salutis)  for  herself  and  the  whole  human  race»  (iii.  22,  4). 
«If  the  former  had  been  disobedient  to  God,  the  latter  was  persuaded 
to  obey  Him,  that  the  Virgin  Mary  might  be  the  advocate  (advocata) 
of  the  Virgin  Eve.  And  as  the  human  race  fell  into  the  slavery  of 
death  through  a  virgin,  so  should  it  be  saved  by  a  virgin ;  the  balance 
is  made  even  when  virginal  obedience  is  weighed  against  virginal 
disobedience  (v.    19,   1). 

1  Adv.  haer.,  iii.  3,    1.  2  Dial.  c.  Tryph.,   c.    100. 


122  FIRST    PERIOD.       FOURTH    SECTION. 

V.  Courdavcaux,  St.  Irenee,  in  Revue  de  l'hist.  des  religions  (1890),  xxi. 
149 — 175.  F.  Cabrol,  La  doctrine  de  St.  Irenee  et  la  critique  de  M.  Cour- 
daveaux,  Paris  and  Lyons,  1891.  J.  Kunze,  Die  Gotteslehre  des  Irenäus 
(Dissert,  inaug.),  Leipzig,  1891.  L.  Duncker,  Des  hl.  Irenäus  Christologie, 
im  Zusammenhange  mit  dessen  theologischen  und  anthropologischen  Grund- 
lehren dargestellt,  Göttingen,  1843.  G.  Molwitz,  De  avaxEcpaXauocrEw;  in 
Irenaei  theologia  potestate  (Dissert,  inaug.),  Dresden,  1874.  E.  Klebba, 
Die  Anthropologie  des  hl.  Irenäus,  Münster,  1894  (Kirchengesch.  Studien, 
ii.  3).  H  Hagemann,  Die  römische  Kirche  ...  in  den  ersten  drei  Jahr- 
hunderten, Freiburg,  1864,  pp.  598 — 627:  «Irenäus  über  den  Primat  der 
römischen  Kirche.»  Acta  et  decreta  ss.  concil.  recent.  Collectio  Lacensis, 
Freiburg,  1873,  iv.  v — xxxiv:  S.  Irenaei  de  ecclesiae  Romanae  principatu 
testimonium.  Cf.  Ad.  Harnack,  in  Sitzungsberichte  der  kgl.  preuß.  Akad. 
der  Wissensch.,  Berlin,  1893,  pp.  939 — 955 ;  J.  Chapman,  in  Revue  Bene- 
dictine (1895),  xii.  49 — 64;  Funk,  in  Kirchengeschichtl.  Abhandlungen  und 
Untersuchungen  (1897),  i.  1—23;  L.  Hopfenmüller,  S.  Irenaeus  de  Eucharistia 
(Dissert,  inaug.),  Bamberg,  1867;  J.  Koerber,  S.  Irenaeus  de  gratia  sancti- 
ficante  (Dissert,  inaug.),  Würzburg,  1865;  L.  Atzberger,  Gesch.  der  christl. 
Eschatologie  innerhalb  der  vornicän.  Zeit,  Freiburg,  1896,  pp.  219 — 263; 
J.  Werner,  Der  Paulinismus  des  Irenäus,  Leipzig,  1889  (Texte  und  Unter- 
suchungen, etc.,  vi.  2);  Gry,  Le  millenarisme  dans  ses  origines  et  son 
developpement,  Paris,  1904. 

4.  OTHER  WRITINGS.  Irenaeus  wrote  many  other  works  that  have 
perished,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  insignificant  fragments.  He 
says  (Adv.  haer.  i.  27,  4;  iii.  12,  12)  that  he  intended  to  write  a 
special  refutation  of  Marcion;  we  do  not  know  whether  he  carried 
out  his  intention.  To  the  Roman  priest  Florinus,  who  leaned  toward 
the  teachings  of  Valentine,  he  addressed  a  work  on  the  Monarchy  (of 
God),  or  to  the  effect  that  God  is  not  the  author  of  evil  (nepi  povapyiac, 
rj  7T£p\  too  py  zlvdi  Tou  &£ov  TtoiTjTTjv  xaxcbuj.  Later,  when  Florinus 
had  abandoned  the  Church,  Irenaeus  wrote  a  treatise  «On  the 
Ogdoad»  (xepl  dydoddogj,  probably  on  the  Valentinian  cycle  of  ^Eons. 
Eusebius  quotes  a  passage  from  each  of  these  works  *.  We  gather 
from  a  Syriac  fragment  that  Irenaeus  wrote  to  Pope  Victor  entreating 
him  to  withstand  Florinus  and  to  suppress  his  writings.  Irenaeus 
also  wrote  to  the  same  Pope  apropos  of  the  Paschal  celebration, 
likewise  to  «many  other  heads  of  churches»  2.  From  one  such  letter 
Eusebius  made  a  lengthy  excerpt 3.  It  was  perhaps  the  same  question 
that  he  treated  in  a  letter  «On  Schism»  (ii£p\  ayiaparoq)  written 
to  Blastus,  a  Roman  Quartodeciman 4.  Eusebius  mentions5  a  brief 
work  of  Irenaeus  against  the  heathens,  entitled:  rrpoQ  "EAAyvag  Aoyoq 
7i£p}  £7Ti<JT7]{i7]Q  iiziy^pappivoc,,  which  Jerome  incorrectly  reads  6 :  Con- 
tra gentes  volumen  breve  et  de  disciplina  aliud.  Eusebius  gives 
also  the  titles  of  some  other  works :  a  demonstration  of  the  apostolic 
preaching  (slg  £7rid£t£iu  tou  0.7:00x0X1x00  xypuypaTog),  and  «a  book 
of  miscellaneous  discourses»  (ßtßXiov  zi  dtaU&ojv  diatpopajv),  probably 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  v.  20.  2  lh}  y    24    l8>  3  lhj  v<  24>    j  j  ff 

4  Ib.,  v.  20,   1.  5  Ib.,  v.  26.  G  De  viris  illustr.,   c.  35. 


§    35-       ANTI-MONT ANISTS.  123 

a  collection  of  homilies.  Maximus  Confessor  quotes 1  some  phrases 
from  a  work  of  St.  Irenaeus  on  faith  (mp\  iriorecuq  Xbyoi).  Little 
credit  is  to  be  given  to  the  inscription  of  a  Syriac  fragment  pur- 
porting to  be  the  work  of  «St.  Irenseus,  bishop  of  Lyons,  (taken) 
from  his  exposition  of  the  first  (chapter?)  of  the  Canticle  of  Canticles». 
The  four  Greek  fragments,  known  from  their  editor,  Chr.  M.  Pfaff 
(17 14),  as  the  Pfafflan  Fragments,  were  until  quite  lately  an  object  of 
erudite  dissension.    Harnack  has  proved  them  to  be  forgeries  of  Pfaff. 

The  fragments  of  other  writings  are  found  in  the  already  cited  editions 
of  Adver sus  haereses ,  e.  g.  in  Massuet,  Paris,  17 10,  pp.  33g — 348;  Migne, 
PG. ,  vii.  1225 — 1264;  Stieren,  i.  821 — 897;  Harvey,  ii.  454 — 511.  Cf. 
Pitra,  Analecta  Sacra,  Paris,  1884,  ii.  194 — 210.  The  Syriac  and  Armenian 
fragments  are  in  Harvey,  ii.  454 — 469,  and  somewhat  increased  in  Martin- 
Pitra,  1.  c. ,  iv.  26  ff.  299  ff. \  cf.  Preuschen ,  in  Harnack,  Gesch.  der 
altchristl.  Literatur,  i.  266  ff. ;  Harnack,  1.  c,  ii.  1,  518  ff.  For  the  fragments 
of  the  letter  or  letters  to  Pope  St.  Victor,  see  Zahn,  1.  c,  iv.  283 — 308. 
The  question  of  the  Pfaffian  Fragments  is  treated  by  Harnack,  in  Texte 
und  Untersuchungen,  xx,  new  series  (1900),  v.  3,  1—69.  Cf.  P.  Batifol, 
in  Bulletin  de  litterature  ecclesiast.  (1901),  ii.  189 — 200. 

§  35.     Anti-Montanists. 

1.  PRELIMINARY  REMARKS.  The  most  prominent  element  in  the 
controversy  between  the  Montanists  and  the  Catholics  were  the  ec- 
static discourses  of  the  prophets  of  Montanism.  These  ecstasies, 
whether  in  the  shape  of  swoonings  or  delirium,  were  put  forward 
by  the  Montanists  as  evidence  of  the  purity  and  truth  of  their  re- 
velations. The  Catholics  denounced  them  as  deceitful  signs  of  pseudo- 
prophecy  2.  We  have  already  mentioned  the  anti-Montanist  letters 
of  Apollinaris,  bishop  of  Hierapolis,  and  the  work  of  the  apologist 
Miltiades  (§19,  I  2).  The  statement  of  the  author  of  Praedestinatus 
(i.  26;  cf.  86)  that  Pope  Soter  (f  ca.  174)  wrote  a  book  against  the 
Montanists,  is  subject  to  caution. 

2.  THE  ANONYMOUS  OF  192/193.  We .  have  to  regret  the  loss  of 
a  polemical  work  against  Montanism  from  which  Eusebius  made  se- 
veral excerpts 3.  Its  three  books  included  not  only  a  refutation  of 
the  Montanist  teaching,  but  also  detailed  information  concerning  the 
history  of  the  Montanist  prophets.  From  internal  data  it  must  have 
been  published  not  later  than  the  early  part  of  193.  The  author  was 
a  priest  of  Asia  Minor;  his  name  is  not  given  by  Eusebius.  Jerome  4  has 
too  hastily  identified  him  with  the  anti-Gnostic  Rhodon  (§  33,  4). 

The  Eusebian  fragments  of  the  «Anonymous»  are  in  Routh,  Reliquiae 
Sacrae  (2.  ed.),  ii.  181 — 217;  also  in  Migne,  PG.,  x.  145 — 156.  Cf.  G.  N. 
Bonwetsch,  Die  Geschichte  des  Montanismus,  Erlangen,  1881,  pp.  27 — 29; 
Th.  Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  etc.  (1893), 
v.  13—21. 


1  Migne,  PG.,  xci.  276.  2  TertulL,  Adv.  Marc,  iv.  22. 

3  Hist,  eccl.,  v.    16   17.  4  De  viris  illustr.,  cc.   37.  39. 


124  FIRST    PERIOD.       FOURTH    SECTION. 

3.  APOLLONIUS.  The  anti-Montanist  work  of  the  «ecclesiastical 
writer»  Apollonius  was  another  important  historical  authority  used  by 
Eusebius  in  his  description  of  the  Phrygian  heresy  \  This  work 
of  Apollonius  was  very  probably  written  in  197,  and  contained  ab- 
undant historical  material.  Apollonius  was  also  a  native  of  Asia 
Minor,  and  is  said  in  Praedestinatus  (i.  26  27  86)  to  have  been 
bishop  of  Ephesus. 

The  Eusebian  fragments  are  collected  in  Routh ,  1.  c,  i.  463 — 485; 
Migne,  1.  c,  v.  1381 — 1386.  Cf.  Bonwetsch ,  1.  c,  29  fr.;  Zahn,  1.  c,  v. 
21—28. 

4.  CAIUS.  In  the  reign  of  Pope  Zephyrin  (199 — 217)  the  Roman 
Caius,  an  «ecclesiastical»  and  «very  learned»  man2  published  a 
polemical  dialogue  against  the  Montanist  Proclus.  Eusebius  gathered 
a  few  phrases  from  it  for  his  history3.  In  1888,  J.  Gwynn  published, 
with  a  commentary,  some  new  fragments  of  this  dialogue  taken  from 
the  «Capitula»  of  St.  Hippolytus  against  Caius.  In  this  work  Hippo- 
lytus  defended  the  Apocalypse  of  St.  John  against  Caius  who  had 
declared  in  his  dialogue  that  it  was  the  work  of  Cerinthus.  The 
information  concerning  Caius  found  in  Photius4,  when  not  based  on 
Eusebius,  is  untrustworthy;  he  confounds  Caius  with  Hippolytus  or 
rather  with  the  author  of  the   »Philosophoumena». 

The  Caius  fragments  are  collected  in  Routh,  1.  c,  ii.  123 — 158;  Migne, 
1.  c,  x.  25 — 36.  For  the  fragments  of  the  «Capitula»  of  Hippolytus  against 
Caius  cf.  §  54,  3.  For  Caius  consult  especially  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neu- 
testamentl.  Kanons,  etc.,  ii.  985 — 991.  G.  Salmon,  in  Diet,  of  Christian 
Biogr.,  London,   1877,  i.  384 — 386. 

5.  AN  UNKNOWN  WRITER.  Epiphanius  knew  and  used  an  ancient 
work  that  criticized  very  severely  the  prophecy  of  the  Montanists, 
especially  their  ecstatic  utterances5.  Voigt  believed  that  this  was  a 
work  by  Rhodon ;  Rolffs  held  it  to  have  been  written  by  Hippolytus. 
Both  opinions  are  subject  to  grave  objections. 

H.  G.  Voigt,  Eine  verschollene  Urkunde  des  antimontanistischen  Kampfes. 
Die  Berichte  des  Epiphanius  über  die  Kataphryger  und  Quintillianer  unter- 
sucht, Leipzig,  1891.  E.  Rolffs,  Urkunden  aus  dem  antimontahistischen 
Kampfe  des  Abendlandes,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  Leipzig,  1895,  xii. 
99  ff.   122  ff. 

§  36.     Writings  of  Ecclesiastical  Authorities  and  Synods,   chiefly  concerning 
Heresies  and  Schisms. 

I.  WRITINGS  OF  POPES.  Pope  Soter  (ca.  166—174)  wrote  a 
Letter  to  the  Christians  of  Corinth  in  the  name  of  the  Roman  com- 
munity (§  8,  2  3);    he   is   also   said   to  have  written  a  work  against 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  v.   18.  2  Bus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  ii.  25,  6;  vi.  20,  3. 

3  Ib.,  vi.  20;  ii.  25,  6—7;  iii.  28,   i  —  2,  gl,  -4.  *  Bibl.  Cod.  48. 

5  Haer.,  48,    I — 13. 


§    36.      WRITINGS    OF    ECCLESIASTICAL    AUTHORITIES    AND    SYNODS.       125 

the  Montanists  (§35,  1).  The  Roman  bishop  who,  according  to 
Tertullian 1,  gave  letters  of  communion  to  the  Montanist  communities 
in  Asia  Minor,  but  soon  withdrew  them,  was  either  Pope  Eleutherus 
(ca.  174 — 189;  cf.  §  34,  1)  or  his  successor,  Pope  Victor  I.  (189  to 
198/199).  During  the  great  controversy  concerning  the  time  of 
the  Easter  celebration,  Pope  Victor  wrote  several  Encyclical  Letters, 
it  is  supposed  to  all  the  churches ;  among  them  were  a  Letter  which 
urged  the  holding  of  synods  for  the  settling  of  these  troubles2,  a 
Letter  in  promulgation  of  the  decision  of  a  Roman  synod3,  and  a 
Letter  which  excluded  the  refractory  churches  of  Asia  Minor  from 
ecclesiastical  communion  on  the  ground  that  their  stubborn  retention 
of  the  Quartodeciman  custom  proclaimed  them  heretics  4.  Victor  was 
a  native  of  Roman  Africa,  and  according  to  St.  Jerome  5  wrote  some 
theological  treatises  in  Latin  (mediocria  de  religione  volumina  6J. 
For  this  reason  he  is  reckoned  by  St.  Jerome  the  first  of  the  Latin 
ecclesiastical  writers.  According  to  Optatus  of  Mileve  Pope  Zephyrin 
(199 — 217),  wrote  a  work  against  heretics7. 

For  the  «testimonia»  concerning  Pope  Victor,  cf.  Caspari,  Quellen  zur 
Gesch.  des  Taufsymbols  und  der  Glaubensregel,  Christiania,  1875,  iii.  413  f. 
432  ff.;  Harnack,  Der  pseudocyprianische  Traktat  De  aleatoribus,  in  Texte 
und  Untersuchungen,  Leipzig,  1888,  v.  1,  110  ff.  For  the  tractate  De 
aleatoribus  that  Harnack  adjudicated  to  Pope  Victor,  cf.  §  51,  6  g.  jf.  Turmel, 
L'Eglise  romaine  jusqu'au  pape  Victor,  in  Revue  catholique  des  figlises, 
1905,  3—21. 

2.  DIONYSIUS  OF  CORINTH.  Dionysius,  bishop  of  Corinth  and  con- 
temporary of  Pope  Soter  (see  p.  123),  was  highly  esteemed  in  his  time, 
and  his  judgment  sought  for  by  many  churches  in  matters  of  contro- 
versy. There  was  extant  in  the  days  of  Eusebius  a  collection  of 
his  seven  «Catholic»  Letters  written  to  as  many  communities,  together 
with  a  private  letter  of  Dionysius 8.  The  last  of  these  «Catholic» 
Letters  was  written  in  grateful  response  to  a  letter  of  the  Roman 
community;  Eusebius  has  preserved  for  us  four  interesting  and  valuable 
passages 9.  He  says  also  10  that  the  Letter  to  the  Nicomedians  was 
directed  against  the  heresy  of  Marcion.  Apropos  of  the  Letter  to 
the  community  of  Cnossus  in  Crete,  Eusebius  tells  us  n  of  a  reply 
to  Dionysius,  written  by  Pinytus,  bishop  of  Cnossus.  What  Jerome 
relates  12  about  Dionysius  and  Pinytus  is  taken  from  Eusebius. 

Cf.  Rouths  Reliquiae  Sacrae  (2.  ed.),  i.  175—201:  BB.  Dionysius  et 
Pinytus. 

1  Adv.  Prax.,   c.    1.  2  Polycrates,  in  Eus.,  Hist,   eccl.,  v.  24,   8. 

3  Eus.,  1.  c,  v.   23,   3.  4  Ib.,  v.   24,   9. 

5  De  viris  illustr.,   c.   53  ;   cf.  c.   34. 

6  Hier.,  Chron.  ad  a.  Abr.    2209. 

7  De  schism.  Donat.,   i.  9.  8  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.  23. 

9  Ib.,  iv.  23,   10—12;  ii.  25,  8.  10  Ib.,  iv.  23,  4.  »  Ib.,  iv.  23,   7—8. 

12  De  viris  illustr.,   cc.   27 — 28. 


I26  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

3.  SERAPION  OFANTIOCH.  Serapion,  bishop  of  Antioch  (199— 211), 
wrote  many  Letters,  the  addresses  of  some  of  which  are  made  known 
to  us  by  Eusebius  *,  e.  g.  one  to  a  certain  Domninus,  who  had  fallen 
away  from  the  Christian  faith  during  a  persecution  and  become  a 
Jew;  another  to  Pontius  and  Caricus  against  Montanism  2,  also  a  Letter 
to  the  Christians  of  Rhossus  warning  them  not  to  read  the  Gospel 
of  Peter  (§  29,   5). 

Cf.  Routh,  1.  c,  i.  447—462;  Migne,  PG.,  v.  1371— 1376.  For  other 
details  concerning  Serapion  see  de  Buck,  in  Acta  SS.  Oct.  (xm),  Pans, 
1883,  pp.  248—252. 

4.  SYNODICAL  WRITINGS  IN  THE  PASCHAL  CONTROVERSY.  As 
a  result  of  the  Encyclical  Letter  of  Pope  Victor  I.  (see  p.  125) 
synods  were  held  in  several  places,  to  discuss  the  celebration  of 
Easter,  and  the  decisions  of  the  Fathers  were  communicated  to  the 
Pope.  Eusebius  gives  a  list  of  such  synods,  and  quotes  some  frag- 
ments from  their  writings3. 

These  fragments  are  two  passages  from  the  Letter  which  a  synod  of 
Asia  Minor  sent  to  the  Pope  through  Polycrates  of  Ephesus  in  justification 
of  the  Quartodeciman  practice  (cf.  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl,  v.  24,  2 — 8;  iii.  31,  3; 
Hier.,  De  viris  illustr.,  c.  45),  and  the  conclusion  of  a  Letter  sent  to  the 
Pope  by  a  synod  of  Palestine  that  was  presided  over  by  Theophilus, 
bishop  of  Caesarea,  and  Narcissus,  bishop  of  Jerusalem.  It  decided  for  the 
Western  (Roman)  practice  (cf.  Ens.,  1.  c,  v.  25;  Hier.,  1.  c,  c.  43).  The 
latter  fragment  is  in  Routh,  1.  c,  ii.  1 — 7;  Migne,  1.  c,  v.  1365 — 1372 ; 
for  the  other  two  see  Routh,  ii.  9—36;  Migne ,  v.  1355— 1362.  Tne 
Letter  of  Bacchyllus,  bishop  of  Corinth,  was  a  private  missive  (cf.  Eus., 
1.  c,  v.  23,  4),  erroneously  stated  by  Jerome  (1.  c. ,  c.  44)  to  have  been 
a  synodical  writing. 

FIFTH  SECTION. 

ECCLESIASTICAL  LITERATURE  DURING  THE  GENESIS 
OF  CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 

CHAPTER    I. 

THE  ORIENTALS. 

§  37.     General  Considerations. 

Since  the  end  of  the  second  century  the  need  of  a  scientific 
treatment  of  the  teaching  of  the  Church  was  felt  with  increasing 
force.  History,  exegesis,  and  philosophy  put  forward  their  claims  as 
auxiliaries  of  Christian  truth.  Ecclesiastical  literature  thus  entered 
upon  new  lines  of  development;  new  aims  and  new  paths  were 
opened  up.  The  older  apologists  and  anti-heretical  writers  had  created 
a  literature  of  defence  and  attack;  henceforth  there  was  to  be, 
within  the  Church  herself,  a  peaceful  growth  of  literary  activity.    This 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.    12;   cf.  Hieron.,  De  viris  illustr.,   c.  41. 
**  Hist,  eccl.,  v.   19.  3  Ib.,  v.   23 — 25. 


§    38.       CLEMENT   OF   ALEXANDRIA.  127 

scientific  tendency  was  liveliest  in  the  Christian  East  where  the 
catechetical  school  of  Alexandria  soon  became  known  as  a  famous 
centre  and  nursery  of  ecclesiastical  science.  Its  origin  is  shrouded 
in  obscurity.  About  1 80,  it  appears  in  full  operation,  but  as  an 
institution  long-since  established  %\  It  was  probably  at  first  only  a 
school  for  catechumens ,  but  when  Pantaenus  took  charge  of  it, 
about  180,  it  must  have  already  acquired  the  character  of  a  Chris- 
tian academy  in  which  all  Greek  science  was  studied  and  made 
to  do  apologetic  service  in  favour  of  the  Christian  cause.  Under 
Clement  and  Origen  it  reached  the  acme  of  its  renown  that  however 
began  to  fade  in  the  fourth  century.  The  devotion  to  scientific  labours 
now  spread  from  Alexandria  to  Palestine.  Alexander,  a  disciple  of 
the  catechists  Pantaenus  and  Clement,  began,  as  bishop  of  Jeru- 
salem, a  theological  library  in  the  Holy  City  itself2.  A  little  later, 
about  233,  when  Origen  sought  a  new  home  in  Palestine,  he  opened 
a  school  at  Caesarea  in  which  the  scientific  element  was  even  more 
strongly  emphasized  than  at  Alexandria.  In  the  second  half  of  the 
same  century  the  learned  presbyter  Pamphilus  laboured  actively  at 
Caesarea  for  the  academical  interests  of  the  Church.  He  is  usually 
credited  with  having  founded  there  the  famous  library  that  was  so 
serviceable  to  Eusebius  and  Jerome ;  there  can  be  no  doubt,  however, 
that  the  beginnings  of  this  most  valuable  of  all  the  ancient  Christian 
libraries  were  owing  to  Origen 3.  The  Christian  masters  of  Alex- 
andria extended  their  vigorous  and  efficient  influence  as  far  as  Asia 
Minor.  Of  the  two  most  important  ecclesiastical  writers  that  we 
meet  there  in  the  third  century,  Gregory  Thaumaturgus  was  a 
disciple  of  Origen,  bred  in  his  school  at  Caesarea ,  while  Methodius 
of  Olympus  made  it  his  life-work  to  oppose  the  theology  of  that 
master. 

H.  E.  F.  Guerike ,  De  schola  quae  Alexandriae  floruit  catechetica, 
Halle,  1824 — 1825,  i — ii.  C.  F.  W.  Hasselbach,  De  schola  quae  Alexandriae 
floruit  catechetica,  Stettin,  1826 — 1839,  i — n-  €k.  Bigg,  The  Christian 
Platonists  of  Alexandria,  Oxford,  1886.  F.Lehmann,  Die  Katechetenschule 
zu  Alexandria  kritisch  beleuchtet,  Leipzig,  1896  (of  small  value).  A.  Ehr- 
hard ,  Die  griechische  Patriarchalbibliothek  von  Jerusalem ,  in  Rom. 
Quartalschr.  für  Christi.  Altertumskunde  und  für  Kirchengesch.  (1891),  v. 
217—265  329—331   383—384;  (1892),  vi.  339—365- 

A.   THE  ALEXANDRINES. 

§  38.     Clement  of  Alexandria. 

1.  HIS  LIFE.  Titus  Flavius  Clemens  was  born  about  150,  probably 
at  Athens 4,  it  is  supposed  of  heathen  parents.  After  his  conversion 
to  Christianity  he  travelled  extensively  through  Southern  Italy,,  Syria 

1  i$  dp%aiou  e&oug,  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  v.   10,    1.  2  Ib.,  vi.  20,   1. 

3  Hieron.,  De  viris  illustr.,  c.    113.  *  Epiph.,  Haer.,   32,  6. 


128  FIRST    PERIOD.      FIFTH    SECTION. 

and  Palestine,  finally  through  Egypt,  seeking  everywhere  the  society 
and  instruction  of  Christian  teachers  *.  At  Alexandria  he  fell 
under  the  spell  of  the  catechist  Pantaenus.  As  a  result,  he  took 
up  his  permanent  residence  in  that  city,  apparently  a  little  before 
1 80,  and  became  a  presbyter  of  that  church2.  Since  about  190  he 
was  the  associate  and  assistant  of  Pantaenus  in  the  work  of  the 
school;  after  the  death  of  the  latter,  about  200,  he  took  up  the 
head-mastership  of  the  same3.  As  early  as  202  or  203  he  was 
obliged  to  quit  Alexandria  because  of  the  persecution  that  broke 
out  under  Septimius  Severus.  We  meet  him,  about  211,  in  Asia 
Minor  in  the  company  of  his  former  disciple  Alexander,  the  future 
bishop  of  Jerusalem 4.  A  letter  of  Alexander  to  Origen,  written  in 
215   or  216,  speaks  of  Clement  as  a  father  gone  to  his  rest5. 

J.  H.  Reinkens,  De  demente  presbytero  alexandrino,  homine,  scriptore, 
philosopho,  theologo  liber,  Breslau,  1851.  E.  Freppel ,  Clement  d'Alex- 
andrie,  Paris,  1865  ;  3.  ed.  Paris,  1886.  B.  F.  Westeott,  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria, in  Diet,  of  Christ.  Biogr.,  London,  1877,  i.  559  —  567.  F.  Bbhringer, 
Die  griechischen  Väter  des  3.  und  4.  Jahrhunderts.  1.  Clemens  und  Ori- 
genes  (Die  Kirche  Christi  und  ihre  Zeugen,  i.  2,  1,  2.  ed.),  Zürich,  1869. 
Th.  Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  etc.  (1884), 
iii.   156 — 176. 

2.  CLEMENT  AS  A  WRITER.  He  is  an  epoch-making  figure  in  the 
history  of  the  growth  of  early  Christian  literature.  He  differs  from 
his  teachers  inasmuch  as  they  had  confined  themselves  to  oral  in- 
struction, while  he  added  thereto  the  use  of  the  written  page  as 
an  academical  means  of  forming  the  minds  of  his  pupils 6.  His 
purpose  is  the  scientific  establishment  of  the  teachings  of  the 
Church;  he  is  desirous  of  furnishing  it  with  a  good  basis  of  philo- 
sophy and  of  reconciling  it  with  contemporary  thought.  The  source 
of  his  frequent  slips  and  errors  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  he 
is  better  equipped  to  appreciate  the  ideal  content  of  Christian  truth 
than  to  expound  the  positive  theology  of  redemption.  To  the  cause 
of  Christianity,  which  he  espoused  with  a  generous  zeal,  he  brought 
a  highly  gifted  nature  and  an  encyclopedic  knowledge.  Clement 
is  well-acquainted  with  the  profane  writers  of  Greece,  and  particularly 
with  the  works  of  Plato.  Much  of  the  earlier  ecclesiastical  literature 
was  also  well-known  to  him.  His  diction  is  relatively  pure,  and  his 
exposition  «flowery  and  exuberant  and  very  agreeable»  7.  Of  the 
extensive  «Introduction  to  Christianity»  to  which  he  devoted  many 
years  of  his  life,  nearly  all  has  been  preserved  (Protrepticus,  Paed- 
agogus,  Stromata).  He  wrote  another  important  work,  the  Hypotyposes, 
of  which  only  insignificant  fragments  have  come  down  to  us.  Similarly, 
out  of  a  series  of  minor  writings  only  one  Homily  has  been  preserved. 

1  Strom.,  i.   1,    11.  2  Paedij  j    6;   37  3  Eus }  Hist#  ecclj  vi    6 

4  Ib.,  vi.  11,  5—6.  5  Ib.,  vi.   14,  8—9. 

6  Strom.,  i.   1,   11  — 14;  cf.  Eclog.  27.  '  Phot.,  Bibl.  Cod.   110. 


§    38.       CLEMENT    OF    ALEXANDRIA.  I  29 

The  first  editions  of  his  works  were  brought  out  by  P.  Victorius,  Flo- 
rence, 1550,  and  by  Fr.  Sylburg ,  Heidelberg,  1592.  The  best  and  most 
complete  edition  is  that  of  J.  Potter,  Oxford,  17 15  (Venice,  1757),  2  voll., 
often  reprinted,  e.  g.  by  Fr.  Oberthür,  Würzburg,  1778 — 1779,  3  voll.; 
R.  Klotz,  Leipzig,  1831— 1834,  4  voll;  Migne,  PG.,  viii— ix.  1857.  The 
edition  oiW.  Dindorf,  Oxford,  1869,  4  voll.,  failed  to  meet  the  reasonable 
expectations  of  many.  Cf.  P.  de  Lagarde,  in  Götting.  gelehrte  Anzeigen, 
1870,  pp.  801  —  824,  and  Id.,  Symmikta,  Göttingen,  1877,  pp.  10 — 24. 
Valuable  contributions  to  these  editions  of  Clement  are  found  in  Zahn, 
Forschungen  zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  etc.  (1884),  iii:  Supple- 
mentum  Clementinum.  O.  Staehlin ,  Observationes  criticae  in  dementem 
Alexandrinum  (Dissert,  inaug.),  Erlangen,  1890.  Id.,  Beiträge  zur  Kenntnis 
der  Handschriften  des  Clemens  Alexandrinus  (Progr.),  Nürnberg,  1895. 
Id.,  Untersuchungen  über  die  Scholien  zu  Clemens  Alex.  (Progr.),  Nürn- 
berg, 1897.  Preuschen,  in  Harnack ,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  i. 
296 — 327.  O.  Staehlin,  7mx  handschriftlichen  Überlieferung  des  Clemens 
Alex.,  Leipzig,   1901   (Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  new  series,  v.  4). 

3.  PROTREPTICUS.  PAEDAGOGUS.  STROMATA.  These  three  treatises 
are  parts  of  a  complete  whole  1  designed  to  act  as  a  graduated  or 
progressive  introduction  to  Christianity.  The  first  part  or  «Exhortation 
to  the  Heathen»  (TzporpeTrztxbQ  Ttpbq  "EXl-qvaq)  is  closely  related,  in 
form  and  contents,  to  the  earlier  apologetic  literature  of  the  second 
century.  It  opens  with  an  eloquent  invitation  to  listen  no  more  to 
the  mythical  chants  about  the  gods  of  heathendom,  but  to  the  new 
song  of  which  the  Logos  that  went  forth  from  Sion  is  at  once  singer 
and  theme  (c.  1).  Thereupon  it  exposes  the  folly  and  worthlessness 
of  the  heathen  religious  beliefs  and  practices  (cc.  2 — 7),  and  praises 
the  truth  made  known  by  the  prophets  (cc.  8 — 12).  The  three 
books  of  the  Paedagogus  (natdaycoyoQ)  are  meant  as  a  training  in  the 
new  Christian  life  for  the  reader  who  has  already  turned  away  from 
heathenism2.  The  first  book  treats  of  the  educational  purpose  of  the 
Logos,  of  the  children  (natdsQ)  to  be  educated,  and  of  the  educational 
method,  a  combination  of  love  and  mildness  with  wrathful  and  puni- 
tive justice.  The  other  two  books  contain  detailed  instruction  con- 
cerning food  and  drink,  dwellings  and  furniture,  feasts  and  amuse- 
ments, sleep  and  recreation,  the  relations  of  the  sexes,  dress  and 
ornament,  and  the  like.  Apart  from  a  few  chapters,  especially 
at  the  beginning  and  close  of  the  third  book,  the  text  does  not  rise 
above  the  level  of  a  sprightly  «causerie».  It  often  assumes  a  facetious 
tinge  and  occasionally  runs  over,  especially  in  polemic,  into  broad 
humour.  In  some  later  manuscripts  two  Hymns  are  added  to  the 
Paedagogus ,  a  Hymn  to  Jesus  Christ  (opvoq  tod  ocor/jpo'Q  XpLoroü) 
attributed  to  Clement  and  perhaps  written  by  him,  or  at  least  added 
by  him  to  the  text,  and  a  Hymn  to  the  Paedagogus  fsfq  rbv 
-aidaytoyov),  by  some  unknown  reader  of  the  work.  —  In  the  only 
manuscript  that  has  reached  us  of  the  third  and  crowning  section  of 

1  Paed.,  i.    1;   Strom.,  vi.   I,    I.  2  Cf.  Paed.,  i.    I. 

Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  9 


I3O  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

this  introduction,  it  is  entitled  ffrpwfiatetg  or  «Miscellanies»  (strictly, 
«Tapestries»).  Internal  evidence  shows  that  the  original  title  was  xaza 
Tqv  dlrjdyj  yiXoaoyiav  yvtoaxiYAov  uTrojuvYjjudzwv  aTptofiarzio,,  i.  e.  «Ta- 
pestries of  scientific  commentaries  according  to  the  true  philosophy»  1. 
It  was  his  intention  to  present  in  this  work  a  scientific  account  of 
the  revealed  truths  of  Christianity2.  The  contents  however  cor- 
respond very  imperfectly  to  our  just  expectations.  The  Stromata 
are  ever  relapsing  into  the  propaedeutic  tone  of  the  Protrepticus  and 
the  Paedagogus,  or  entering  upon  lines  of  apologetic  discourse,  or 
taking  up  questions  of  practical  morality;  thus  they  repeatedly  put 
off  the  treatment  of  the  theme  announced  in  their  opening  para- 
graph. The  first  book  deals  chiefly  with  the  importance  of  philo- 
sophy and  its  utility  for  Christian  knowledge.  In  the  second  book 
the  author  insists  strongly  on  the  superiority  of  revealed  truth  to 
all  the  works  of  human  reason.  In  the  third  and  fourth  books  he 
calls  attention  to  two  practical  criteria  that  differentiate,  in  striking 
contrast,  the  Catholic  from  the  heretical  Gnosis  —  they  are  the 
striving  for  moral  perfection  visible  in  virginal  and  married  chastity, 
and  the  love  of  God  as  made  manifest  in  martyrdom.  The  fifth 
book  returns  to  the  relations  of  the  true  Gnosis  and  faith,  deals 
with  the  symbolical  presentation  of  the  truths  of  religion,  and  enu- 
merates the  elements  of  truth  borrowed  by  the  Hellenic  from  the 
so-called  barbarian  (Jewish  and  Christian)  philosophy.  The  sixth 
and  seventh  books  offer  a  faithful  portrait  of  the  true  Gnostic;  he 
is  the  personification  of  all  Christian  perfection.  Clement  excuses 
the  lack  of  order  and  unity  in  the  Stromata  and  accounts  for  it  by 
recalling  to  the  attention  of  the  reader  the  peculiar  purpose  of  the 
work3.  In  the  preface  of  the  fourth  book  he  confesses  that  he  had 
hoped  to  finish  the  subject  in  one  book,  but  the  abundance  of  material 
was  so  great  (v<p  nkrftzi  rcov  itpayfidTfav)  that  he  was  carried  far 
beyond  his  original  plan4;  yet  at  the  end  of  the  seventh  book  he 
has  not  mastered  it,  and  feels  bound  to  promise  other  books5;  he 
seems,  indeed,  to  have  written  an  eighth  book 6.  The  above-mentioned 
manuscript  offers  an  eighth  book,  but  it  is  only  a  small  tractate, 
mutilated  at  beginning  and  end,  on  the  strictly  logical  process  to  be 
followed  in  the  search  for  truth.  Then  follow  excerpts  from  the 
writings  of  Theodotus  and  other  disciples  of  the  Oriental  school  of 
Valentine,  usually  known  as  Excerpta  ex  scriptis  Theodoti  (§25,  5), 
also  selected  passages  from  the  Prophets,  known  as  Ex  scripturis  pro- 
pheticis  eclogae  fix  toju  Ttpoiprjztxcov  Ixloyai).  Zahn  holds  that  these 
three  fragments  are  selections  from  the  original  contents  of  the  eighth 
book,  while  von  Arnim  maintains  that  they  represent  rough  sketches 

1  Strom.,  i.   29,    182;  iii.   18,    110,   al.  2  Paed,   i.    1;   Strom.,  vi.    1,    1. 

3  i.   1,    18;  iv.   2,  4,  al.  4  iv.    1,    1.  5  vii.    18,    in. 

6  Bus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   13,    1  ;  Phot.,  Bibl.   Cod.    in. 


§    38.       CLEMENT    OF   ALEXANDRIA.  I3I 

and  preliminary  studies  of  Clement,  perhaps  for  the  eighth  book  of  the 
Stromata ;  probably,  however,  for  other  writings.  The  Protrepticus  may 
have  been  written  before  189,  the  Paedagogus  about  190,  the  Stromata 
about  200 — 202/203.  Many  of  the  numerous  authors  quoted  by  Cle- 
ment were  very  probably  known  to  him  only  through  anthologies. 
In  the  acceptance  and  use  of  those  Judaistic-Alexandrine  forgeries 
which  pretend  to  establish  the  intellectual  priority  of  the  Hebrews  as 
compared  with  the  Greeks,  he  showed  himself  credulous  and  uncritical. 
Wendland  is  of  opinion  that  lengthy  passages  of  the  Paedagogus 
and  the  Stromata  were  borrowed  from  the  Stoic  Musonius,  the  teacher 
of  Epictetus,  or  at  least  from  the  lectures  of  Musonius  as  represented 
by  the  notes  of  some  student  of  that  master.  On  the  other  hand 
Arnobius  and  Theodoret  of  Cyrus  made  extensive  use  of  the  writings 
of  Clement. 

The  Protrepticus  and  the  Paedagogus  have  reached  us  through  the  Arethas- 
Codex  (§  13)  of  A.  D.  914,  and  some  copies  of  the  same;  the  Stromata 
through  the  Cod.  Flor.  Laurent.  V  3  (saec.  xi),  and  a  copy  of  it.  On  the 
plan  and  nature  of  the  entire  work  cf.  Overbeck,  in  Histor.  Zeitschr.,  new 
series  (1882),  xii.  454  rT.  D.  Dragomeros ,  KXtq^svph  'AXsEavöpeoK  6  Trpo- 
tpeirrixo«  TTpoc  "EXXtjv*?  X070C,  Bucarest,  1890.  O.Staehlin,  Clemens  Alexandri- 
nus,  i;  Protrepticus  und  Paedagogus  (Die  griechischen  christlichen  Schrift- 
steller), Leipzig,  1905.  R.  Taverni,  Sopra  il  iraiSaYcjyyo;  di  Tito  Flavio  de- 
mente Alessandrino,  Rome,   1885. 

For  a  German  version  of  the  Protrepticus  and  Paedagogus  cf.  L.  Hopfen- 
müller and  y.  Wimmer,  Kempten,  1875  (Bibliothek  der  Kirchenväter).  The 
first  of  the  two  Hymns  at  the  end  of  the  Paedagogus  was  published  in  a 
carefully  revised  text  by  W.  Christ  and  M.  Paranikas ,  Anthologia  graeca 
carminum  christianorum ,  Leipzig,  187 1,  pp.  37  ff, \  cf.  xvm  ff.  For  the 
chronological  chapter  in  the  Stromata  (i.  21,  10 1 — 147)  cf.  the  classical 
recension  of  P.  de  Lagarde,  in  Abhandlungen  der  k.  Gesellsch.  der  Wissen- 
schaften in  Göttingen  (1891),  xxxvii.  73  ff.  V.  Hozakowski ,  De  chrono- 
graphia  Clementis  Alexandrini  (Dissert,  inaug.),  Münster,  1896  (see  n.  9). 
On  the  eighth  book  of  the  Stromata  (Excerpta  ex  Theodoto,  Eclogae  pro- 
pheticae)  cf.  Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons 
(1884),  iii.  104 — 130;  P.  Ruben,  Clementis  Alexandrini  excerpta  ex  Theo- 
doto (Dissert,  inaug.),  Leipzig,  1892;  y.  von  Arnim,  De  octavo  Clementis 
Stromatorum  libro  (Progr.),  Rostock,  1894;  O.  Clausen,  Zur  Stromateis 
des  Clemens  Alex,  und  ihrem  Verhältnis  zum  Protrepticos  und  Paedagogos, 
in  Zeitschr.  für  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1902),  xlv.  465—512.  There  is  an 
English  translation,  by  W.  Wilson,  of  the  writings  of  Clement  in  Ante- 
Nicene  Fathers  (Am.  ed.  1885),  ii.  171—604.  The  hymns  are  translated  by 
W.  Alexander.  P.  jm  A.  Bort  and  J.  B.  Mayor,  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
Miscellanies,  book  7,  Greek  text  with  introduction,  translation,  notes, 
dissertations,  and  indices,  London,  1903;  y.  Bernays ,  Zu  Aristoteles  und 
Clemens,  1864,  reprinted  in  Gesammelte  Abhandlungen  von  J.  B.,  heraus- 
gegeben von  H.  Usener,  Berlin,  1885,  i.  151— 164;  P.  Wendland,  Quae- 
stiones  Musonianae.  De  Musonio  stoico  Clementis  Alexandrini  aliorumque 
auctore,  Berlin,  1886;  Id.,  in  Beiträge  zur  Gesch.  der  griech.  Philosophie 
und  Religion  von  P.  W.  und  O.  Kern,  Berlin,  1895,  pp.  68  ff.;  Id.,  Philo 
und  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  in  Hermes  (1896),  xxxi.  435—456;  Ad.  Scheck, 
De  fontibus  Clementis  Alexandrini  (Progr.),    Augsburg,    1889;    W.   Christ, 

9* 


132 


FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 


Philologische  Studien  zu  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  München,  1900  (Abhand- 
lungen der  kgl.  bayr.  Akad.  der  Wissensch.);  H.  Jackson,  Notes  on  Cle- 
ment of  Alexandria  (Stromata),  in  Journal  of  philology  (1902),  xxvii. 
131  — 135. 

A.  Röhricht,  De  demente  Alexandrino  Arnobii  in  irridendo  gentilmm 
cultu  deorum  auctore  (Progr.),  Hamburg,  1893.  C.  Roos,  De  Theodoreto 
Clementis  et  Eusebii  compilatore  (Dissert,  inaug.),  Halle,  1883.  F.  Schwartz, 
Zu  Clemens'  Tfe  6  owCojJ-evoc  wXooatoc,    in  Hermes  (1903),  xxxviii.  75—100. 

4.  HYPOTYPOSES.  The  work  entitled  bnoronaxjeic  (outlines,  sketches) 
contained  in  eight  books  a  brief  commentary  on  the  Scriptures, 
including  the  Letter  of  Barnabas  and  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter.  It 
was  interspersed  with  excursus  of  a  dogmatic  or  historical  nature1. 
There  are  some  Greek  fragments  of  it  in  Eusebius,  Photius,  Oecumenius, 
and  others,  also  in  the  so-called  Adumbrationes  Clementis  Alexandrini 
in  epistulas  canonicas.  This  latter  text  is  a  Latin  version  of  the 
commentary  of  Clement  on  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter,  the  Epistle 
of  Jude,  First  and  Second  of  John,  made  by  order  of  Cassiodorus 
and  cleansed  of  dogmatically  offensive  passages. 

Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  iii.  64—103 
130 — 156;  Preuschen  (see  n.  2),  pp.  306  f.,  collated  with  a  later  codex  Zahn's 
edition  of  the  Adumbrationes  (1.  c,  pp.  79 — 93);  G.  Mercati,  i:  Un  fram- 
mento  delle  ipotiposi  di  Clemente  Alessandrino ;  ii:  Paralipomena  ambro- 
siana,  con  alcuni  appunti  sulle  benedizioni  del  cereo  pasquale,  in  Studi  e 
Testi,  Rome,   1904,  n.   10. 

5.  QUIS  DIVES  SALVETUR.  This  little  work  (Who  is  the  rich  man 
that  is  saved?:  tiq  6  owCofisvoQ  nXoumoQ),  highly  prized  even  in  anti- 
quity, is  a  Homily  on  Mk.  x.  17 — 31.  The  Lord,  says  Clement,  does 
not  intend  to  exclude  any  rich  man  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven; 
he  only  commands  us  to  mortify  in  spirit  our  attachment  to  the  goods 
of  this  earth  and  to  make  good  use  of  our  possessions2.  It  must  have 
been  written  shortly  after  the  publication  of  the  Stromata3. 

The  editio  princeps  is  that  of  M.  Ghisler ,  Leyden,  1623;  recent  se- 
parate editions  are  owing  to  W.  Br.  Lindner,  Leipzig,  1861 ;  K.  Köster, 
Freiburg,  1893  (Sammlung  ausgew.  kirchen-  und  dogmengeschichtl.  Quellen- 
schriften, vi);  P.  M.  Barnard,  Cambridge,  1897  (Texts  and  Studies,  v.  2). 
Former  editions  were  based  on  a  Codex  Vatican,  (saec.  xv);  but  Barnard 
discovered  the  archetype  of  this  manuscript  in  Codex  Scorial.  (saec.  xi). 
A  German  version  of  the  Homily  was  made  by  L.  HopfenmiUler,  Kempten, 
1875  (Bibl.  der  Kirchenväter).  It  was  translated  into  English  by  P.  M. 
Barnard,  London,   1900. 

6.  WORKS  KNOWN  ONLY  FROM  QUOTATIONS  AND  FRAGMENTS. 
Clement  had  intended  to  write  special  works  on  various  themes;  we 
do  not  know  that  he  was  able  to  execute  them.  Thus  it  was  his 
purpose  to  write  on  the  resurrection:  izzp\  dvaardaewQ^;  on  prophecy: 

1  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   13,   2;    14,    1;  Phot.,  Bibl.   Cod.    109. 

2  Cf.  Paed.,  ii.   3;  iii.  6.  3  Cf.  c.   26  and  Strom.,  iv.    1,  2—3. 
4  Paed.,  i.  6,  47;  ii.    10,    104. 


§    38.       CLEMENT    OF    ALEXANDRIA.  133 

7TEp\  7tpo<pTjTeiaQ,  in  defence  of  the  inspiration  of  the  biblical  books 
and  in  opposition  to  Montanism1;  on  the  soul:  izep\  <pu%9JQ,  against 
Basilidians  and  Marcionites 2 ;  perhaps  on  Genesis,  or  the  Creation: 
acq  T7]\>  yivzaiv^.  In  the  Paedagogus^  he  refers  to  a  former  work  on 
continence:  7iep\  ifxparetaq;  in  the  Quis  Dives  (c.  26)  to  his  dis- 
cussion on  First  Principles  and  on  Theology  (äpywv  xai  {reoXoycaq 
s$7}1T7}<tiq)>  Wendland  holds  that  in  the  first  passage  Clement  has 
merely  copied,  and  rather  carelessly,  the  title  of  a  work  of  the 
Stoic  Musonius.  It  is  true,  however,  that  he  announced  in  the 
Stromata5  a  work  on  the  dpyai  and  on  ^eoXoyia.  Eusebius  mentions 
four  other  works  6 :  a)  on  Easter  (nep\  zoo  iz<j.aya),  occasioned  by  the 
homonymous  work  of  Melito  of  Sardes  and  directed  against  the 
Ouartodecimans  of  Asia  Minor7;  b)  an  Ecclesiastical  Canon,  against 
Judaizers:  xavcov  exxXrjmaarixoq  rj  irpbq  robq  loudat^ouraq8;  c)  Homilies 
on  fasting  and  on  calumny:  dtaXi$scq  7iep\  vyjoteiolq  xai  izep\  xara- 
XaXtäq9;  d)  an  Exhortation  to  perseverance,  or  to  the  newly  baptized: 
6  TtpoTpenrixoQ  npoq  bizopovyv  7)  npoq  robe,  vecoazi  ßeßanriapevoöq 10. 
Some  texts  of  the  first  two  are  found  in  later  writers.  Barnard  believ- 
ed (1897)  that  he  had  discovered  a  fragment  of  the  fourth.  — - 
Palladius  is  the  first  to  make  mention  u  of  a  work  on  the  prophet 
Amos:  elg  rev  xpopyzyv  'Apcoq.  A  work  on  Providence:  xep\  npo- 
voiaq,  is  first  mentioned  by  Maximus  Confessor,  Anastasius  Sinaita, 
and  later  writers. 

Zahn,  1.  c,  pp.  32 — 64;  Preuschen,  1.  c,  pp.  299 — 301  308 — 311  316; 
Barnard,  Clement  of  Alex.,   «Quis  dives  salvetur»,  pp.  47 — 52. 

7.  DOCTRINE  OF  CLEMENT.  From  the  initial  words  of  the  Stromata 
(i.  1,  11  — 14)  one  might  be  tempted  to  believe  that  the  whole  work  was 
nothing  more  than  a  written  elaboration  of  the  teaching  that  in  former 
years  Clement  had  heard  from  his  instructors,  and  especially  from  Pan- 
taenus.  It  is  very  probable,  however,  that  such  words  are  only  an 
exaggerated  expression  of  his  own  modesty  and  of  veneration  for  his 
earlier  masters.  Clement  is  frequently  in  conflict  with  ecclesiastical 
tradition,  with  which  he  undertakes  to  combine  elements  that  are 
foreign  to  it.  From  Greek  philosophy  he  borrows  some  far-reaching 
principles,  first  from  the  Stoics,  and  then  from  Plato,  frequently 
through  Philo.  He  is  of  opinion  that  philosophy,  though  its  elements 
of  truth  are  drawn  from  the  Old  Testament,  should  occupy  an  im- 
portant role   in   the  divine   plan    of  redemption.     As   the  Jews  were 

1  Strom.,  i.   24,   158;  iv.    1,   2,  al.  2  Ib.,  ii.  20,   113;  iii.  3,   13,  al. 

3  Eus.,  Hist,   eccl.,  vi.    13,  8;  cf.  Strom.,  iii.    14,   95;  vi.   18,    168. 

4  ii.   10,  94;   cf.  ii.  6,   52;  iii.  8,  41.  5  iv.    1,  2—3;  cf.  iii.  3,    13,  al. 

6  Cf.  Hier.,  De  viris  illustr.,  c.  38. 

7  Bus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.  26,  4;  vi.    13,  39.  8  Ib.,  vi.    13,  3. 
9  Ib.              l0  Ib.              M  Hist.  Lausiaca,   c.    139. 


134  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

led  to  Christ  through  the  Law,  so  should  the  Gentiles  come  to  Him 
through  philosophy :  eitaidaywyet  yap  xac  abrq  (rj  <piXooo<pia)  to  EXXr}- 
vcxou,  coq  o  vofioQ  TOUQ  'Eßpatoug  slg  Xpiorov  \  Only  by  means  of  philo- 
sophy can  the  Christian  advance  from  faith  to  knowledge,  from  Tziang 
to  yvüxjiQ.  Faith  is,  so  to  speak,  a  concise  knowledge  of  what  is 
necessary:  aovropoQ  rcov  xazeTtetyovTcov  yvwacg,  while  science  is  a  strong 
and  assured  demonstration  of  those  truths  that  have  been  accepted 
by  faith:  änodei&Q  rcov  dtä  niarecog  TiapeiXqfipivcov  layopa.  xai  ßeßacog2. 
To  acquire  knowledge  without  philosophy  is  like  hoping  to  harvest 
grapes  without  caring  for  the  vines3.  How  far  Clement,  under  the 
guidance  of  philosophy,  had  fallen  away  from  ecclesiastical  doctrine, 
may  be  gathered  from  the  severe  judgment  of  Photius 4  on  the  Hypo- 
ty poses  (§  38,  4),  a  work  in  which  Clement  seems  to  have  plunged 
more  deeply  into  speculation  than  in  any  of  his  extant  writings. 
«In  some  places»,  says  Photius,  «he  holds  firmly  to  the  correct  doc- 
trine; elsewhere  he  is  carried  away  by  strange  and  impious  notions. 
He  asserts  the  eternity  of  matter,  excogitates  a  theory  of  ideas  from 
the  words  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  reduces  the  Son  to  a  mere  crea- 
ture. He  relates  fabulous  stories  of  a  metempsychosis  and  of  many 
worlds  before  Adam.  Concerning  the  formation  of  Eve  from  Adam 
he  teaches  things  blasphemous  and  scurrilous,  and  anti-scriptural. 
He  imagines  that  the  angels  held  intercourse  with  women  and  begot 
children  from  them,  also  that  the  Logos  did  not  become  man  in 
reality  but  only  in  appearance.  It  even  seems  that  he  has  a  fabulous 
notion  of  two  Logoi  of  the  Father,  of  which  the  inferior  one  appeared 
to  men;  indeed,  not  even  this  one.» 

V.  Hebert- D  tip  err  on,  Essai  sur  la  polemique  et  la  philosophic  de  Clement 
d'Alexandrie,  Paris,  1855.  J-  Cognat,  Clement  d'Alexandrie,  sa  doctrine 
et  sa  polemique,  Paris,  1859.  H.  Preische,  De  p&3&i  Clementis  Alexandrini 
(Dissert,  inaug.),  Jena,  1871.  Knittel,  Pistis  und  Gnosis  bei  Clemens  von 
Alexandrien,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1873),  lv.  171  — 219  363 — 417.  C. 
Merk,  Clemens  Alexandrinus  in  seiner  Abhängigkeit  von  der  griechischen 
Philosophie  (Dissert,  inaug.),  Leipzig,  1879.  -#«  de  Faye,  Clement  d'Alex- 
andrie, Etude  sur  les  rapports  du  Christianisme  et  de  la  philosophic 
grecque  au  2e  siecle,  Paris,  1898.  H.  Laemmer,  Clementis  Alexandrini  de 
X670)  doctrina,  Leipzig,  1855.  G-  Th-  Hillen,  Clementis  Alex,  de  SS.  Eucha- 
ristia  doctrina  (Dissert,  inaug.),  Warendorp,  1861.  G.  Anrieh,  Clemens 
und  Origenes  als  Begründer  der  Lehre  vom  Fegfeuer  (in  Abhandlungen 
für  H.  J.  Holtzmann),  Tübingen,  1902.  P.  Ziegert ,  Zwei  Abhandlungen 
über  T.  Flavius  Clemens  Alexandrinus.  Psychologie  und  Logoschristologie, 
Heidelberg,  1894.  V.  Pascal,  La  foi  et  la  raison  dans  Clement  d'Alexandrie, 
Montdidier,  1901.  Funk,  Clemens  von  Alexandrien  über  Familie  und 
Eigentum,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1871),  lüi.  427—449,  and  in  Kirchen- 
geschichtl.  Abhandlungen  und  Untersuchungen  (1899),  ii.  45  —  60.  Fr.  y. 
Winter ,   Die  Ethik  des  Clemens  von  Alexandrien,    in  Studien  zur  Gesch. 

1  Strom.,  i.   5,   28;   cf.  vi.    17,    159.     Cf.  Gal.  iii.   24. 

2  Strom.,  vii.   10,   57.  3  Ib.,  i.  9,  43.  *  Bibl.  Cod.   109. 


§    38-       CLEMENT    OF    ALEXANDRIA.  I35 

der  christl.  Ethik,  i,  Leipzig,  1882.  G.  Basilakes ,  KXvjpevtoc  tou  'Aäs^- 
avSpstoc  tj  tj&xyj  SiSaaxaXia  (Dissert,  inaug.) ,  Erlangen,  1892.  iT.  Ernesti, 
Die  Ethik  des  Titus  Flavius  Clemens  von  Alexandrien  oder  die  erste  zu- 
sammenhängende Begründung  der  christlichen  Sittenlehre,  Paderborn,  1900. 
Markgraf,  Clemens  von  Alexandrien  als  asketischer  Schriftsteller  in  seiner 
Stellung  zu  den  natürlichen  Lebensgütern,  in  Zeitschr.  für  Kirchengesch. 
(1901— 1902),  xxii.  485—515.  N.  Capitaine,  Die  Moral  des  Clemens  von 
Alexandrien,  Paderborn,  1903.  W.  Wagner,  Der  Christ  und  die  Welt  nach 
Clemens  von  Alexandrien,  ein  noch  unveraltetes  Problem  in  altchristlicher 
Beleuchtung,  Göttingen',  1903.  H.  Eickhojf ,  Das  Neue  Testament  des 
Clemens  Alexandrinus  (Progr.),  Schleswig,  1890.  P.  Dausch,  Der  neutesta- 
mentliche  Schriftkanon  und  Clemens  von  Alexandrien,  Freiburg,  1894. 
H.  Kutter,  Clemens  Alexandrinus  und  das  Neue  Testament,  Gießen,  1897. 
P.  M.  Barnard,  The  Biblical  Text  of  Clement  of  Alexandria  in  the  Four 
Gospels  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  Cambridge,  1899  (Texts  and  Studies, 
v.  5).  O.  Staehlin,  Clemens  Alexandrinus  und  die  Septuaginta  (Progr.), 
Nürnberg,  1901.  Bratke ,  Die  Stellung  des  Clemens  Alexandrinus  zum 
antiken  Mysterien wesen ,  in  Theol.  Studien  und  Kritiken,  (1887).,  Ix.  647 
to  708,  and  P.  Ziegert,  ib.  (1894),  lxvii.  706 — 732.  W  Wagner,  Wert 
und  Verwertung  der  griechischen  Bildung  im  Urteil  des  Clemens  von 
Alexandrien,  in  Zeitschr.  für  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1902),  xlv.  213—262. 
V.  Kranieh,  Qua  via  ac  ratione  Clemens  Alex,  ethnicos  ad  religionem  chri- 
stianam  adducere  studuerit,  Braunsberg,   1903. 

8.  pant.enus.  '  He  was  born  in  Sicily  according  to  Clement  (Strom., 
i.  1,  11),  became  a  Christian  missionary  in  the  East  (India  and  Arabia), 
and  was  for  many  years  president  of  the  catechetical  school  of  Alexandria 
(Pus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  v.  10).  He  died  shortly  before  200,  and  left  no  writings 
(Clem.,  Strom.,  i.  1,  11— 14;  Eclog.  27).  It  is  very  probable  that  the  as- 
sertion of  Eusebius  (Hist,  eccl.,  v.  10,  4),  that  Pantaenus  had  left  books  of 
his  own  composition  (3u77paj1.j1.aTa),  and  similar  statements  in  more  recent 
writers  (Maximus  Confessor,  Anastasius  Sinaita)  are  only  a  hasty  inference 
from  the  fact  that  Clement  often  quotes  expressions  from  Pantaenus.  Jerome 
attributes  to  him  many  Commentaries  on  Scripture,  but  he  is  doubtless 
re-iterating  Eusebius  (cf.  De  viris  illustr.,  c.  $6 ;  Ep.  70,  4).  The  «testimonia» 
of  the  ancients  concerning  Pantaenus  are  met  with  in  Routh ,  Reliquiae 
sacrae,  i.  373 — 383,  and  are  reprinted  in  Migne,  PG. ,  v.  1327 — 1332, 
more  fully  in  Hamack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  i.  291 — 296;  cf. 
particularly  Zahn,  Forschungen,  iii.   156 — 176. 

9.  judas.  A  certain  Judas,  otherwise  unknown,  probably  an  Alexan- 
drine from  what  Eusebius  says  (Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  7  ;  cf.  Hier.,  De  viris  illustr., 
c.  52),  wrote  a  work  on  the  seventy  weeks  of  Daniel:  sis  t<x?  ~apa  tw  AavtrjX 
eßdoptaSa«,  in  which  he  presented  chronological  reckonings  as  far  as  the 
tenth  year  of  the  reign  of  Septimius  Severus  (203)  and  announced  the 
coming  of  Antichrist  as  imminent.  Similar  prophecies  were  made  during 
the  persecution  of  Septimius  Severus  (cf.  Hipp.,  Comm.  in  Dan.,  iv.  18  19). 
We  only  need  mention  the  quite  unsuccessful  attempt  of  Schlatter  who  under- 
took to  find  in  Clement  (Strom.,  i.  21,  147)  and  in  other  writers  traces  of 
a  Christian  chronography  made  in  the  tenth  year  of  Antoninus  Pius  (148). 
He  hoped,  by  rejection  of  the  dates  of  Eusebius,  to  identify  this  chrono- 
graphy with  the  above-mentioned  work  of  Judas.  —  A.  Schlatter,  Der  Chrono- 
graph aus  dem  zehnten  Jahre  Antonins  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  xii.  1), 
Leipzig,  1894.  Harnack ,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  i.  327  755  f.; 
ii.   1,   225  ff.  406  ff. 


I36  FIRST    PERIOD.      FIFTH    SECTION. 

§  3g.     Origen. 

I.  HIS  LIFE  AND  WORKS.  In  the  sixth  book  of  his  Church  History, 
Eusebius  relates  at  length  the  life  and  labors  of  Origen ;  of  the  great 
«Apology  for  Origen»  composed  in  common  by  Eusebius  and  Pam- 
philus,  we  possess  but  a  few  small  remnants.  Similarly,  the  correspon- 
dence of  the  great  theologian  has  perished,  with  the  exception  of  a 
few  pieces.  He  was  born  of  Christian  parents  in  185  or  186,  appa- 
rently at  Alexandria.  Probably  it  was  only  at  a  later  period  that 
the  soubriquet  Adamantius  ('ASajüiävTiog  =  Man  of  steel)  was  applied 
to  him1.  He  owed  his  first  training  to  his  father  Leonid  es,  parti- 
cularly an  excellent  religious  formation2.  At  an  early  age  he  fre- 
quented the  catechetical  school  of  Alexandria,  where  he  profited  by 
the  teaching  of  Clement3.  Leonides  suffered  martyrdom  in  the  per- 
secution of  Septimius  Severus,  202  or  203  ;  the  ardent  desire  of  Origen 
to  share  his  father's  fate  was  frustrated  only  by  his  mother's  ingenuity4. 
Having  lost  its  patrimony  by  confiscation,  the  family,  a  large  one, 
was  reduced  to  poverty.  In  the  meantime  Origen  had  attracted 
the  attention  of  Demetrius,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  and  in  203,  when 
scarcely  eighteen  years  of  age,  was  called  to  the  head-mastership  of 
the  catechetical  school,  as  successor  to  Clement5.  Until  215  or  216 
he  worked  on  at  this  calling,  a  tireless  and  influential  man.  So  far 
as  we  know  his  teaching  was  at  this  time  uninterrupted,  save  for  a 
short  time  by  journeys  to  Rome  and  to  Arabia 6.  It  was  during  these 
years  that  ascetic  zeal,  roused  by  meditation  on  Mt.  xix,  12,  moved 
him  to  emasculate  himself7.  To  gain  leisure  for  his  own  studies  he 
took  in  as  an  associate  teacher  his  former  disciple  Heraclas.  He  retain- 
ed, however,  the  direction  of  the  more  advanced  pupils8.  Origen 
had  probably  reached  his  twenty-fifth  year  when  he  began  to  attend 
the  lectures  of  Ammonius  Saccas,  the  famous  founder  of  Neoplatonism9; 
at  the  same  time  his  zeal  for  biblical  studies  urged  him  to  acquire  a 
knowledge  of  Hebrew 10.  To  this  period  also  belong  his  first  writings. 
The  Alexandrine  massacre  perpetrated  by  Caracalla  in  215  or  216, 
was  the  cause  of  Origen's  flight  to  Palestine.  Here  Alexander,  bishop 
of  Jerusalem,  and  Theoctistus,  bishop  of  Caesarea,  received  him  most 
honourably,  and,  though  he  was  yet  a  layman,  induced  him  to  preach 
in  their  churches.  Demetrius  of  Alexandria  was  dissatisfied  with  their 
conduct,  and  requested  Origen  to  return  without  delay.  The  latter 
obeyed  and  once  more  took  up  his  calling  as  teacher  and  writer11. 
Seven  skilled  amanuenses  were  placed  at  his  disposal  by  Ambrose, 
a    former    disciple;    they   relieved    one   another   in   taking   down  the 

1  Pamphilus-Em  ,  in  Phot.,  Bibl.   Cod.   118;  Hier.,  Ep.  33,   3. 

2  Bus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   2,   7.  3  Ib.,  vi.  6.  *  Ib.,  vi.  2,   5. 

5  Ib.,  vi.  3,  3.  6  Ib.,  vi.   14,   10;   19,    15.  1  Ib.,  vi.  8.  8  Ib.,  vi.    15, 

9  Ib.,  vi.    19.  10  Ib.,  vi.    16,    1.  "  Ib.,  vi.   19,    19. 


§    39-       ORIGEN.  I37 

master's  dictation.  As  many  copyists  and  some  female  calligraphers 
were  also  occupied  in  his  service,  —  in  a  way  this  corps  did  duty  as 
an  Alexandrine  press  for  the  publication  of  his  works1.  About  230  he 
undertook,  with  a  written  recommendation  from  Demetrius2,  a  journey 
to  Athens  in  order  to  confer  with  certain  heretics;  on  the  way  he 
stopped  at  Caesarea  in  Palestine,  where  he  was  ordained  priest 3  by  his 
friends  Alexander  and  Theoctistus;  this  without  the  knowledge  of  his 
bishop  and  in  spite  of  his  act  of  self-emasculation,  for  which  step, 
on  his  return,  Demetrius  called  him  to  account.  He  was  deposed 
from  his  office  as  head-master  by  two  synods  held  at  Alexandria 
(231 — 232),  because  of  his  irregular  ordination  and  his  unecclesiastical 
teaching;  he  was  also  expelled  from  the  city  and  degraded  from  the 
priesthood4.  Shortly  afterwards  Demetrius  died  and  Heraclas  was 
chosen  his  successor,  whereupon  Origen  returned  to  Alexandria,  only 
to  be  again  condemned  and  excommunicated  by  Heraclas  for  un- 
ecclesiastical teaching5.  He  now  took  up  his  permanent  residence  at 
Caesarea,  and  established  there  a  theological  school  that  soon  reached 
a  high  degree  of  efficiency 6.  One  of  its  pupils,  St.  Gregory  Thaumat- 
urgus,  has  left  us  an  interesting  account  of  the  method  of  instruction 
and  the  course  of  studies  carried  on  by  Origen  at  Caesarea7.  With 
the  exception  of  a  few  journeys  to  Athens8  and  Arabia9,  in  the 
service  of  the  Church,  he  seems  to  have  lived  on  in  Caesarea,  con- 
stantly busy  as  teacher,  writer  and  preacher,  to  the  time  of  the 
Decian  persecution.  During  that  storm  he  was  cast  into  prison,  pro- 
bably at  Tyre,  and  underwent  many  tortures10.  Not  long  after  he 
died  at  Tyre11,  in  254  or  255,  having  completed  his  sixty-ninth 
year  12. 

P.  D.  Huetius ,  Origenis  in  S.  Scripturas  commentaria ,  Rouen,  1668, 
i.  1 — 278:  Origeniana  (on  the  life,  doctrine,  and  writings  of  Origen,  three 
books),  often  reprinted,  cf.  Migne ,  PG.,  xvii.  633 — 1284.  £.  R.  Rede- 
penning,  Origenes.  Eine  Darstellung  seines  Lebens  und  seiner  Lehre,  Bonn, 
1 841  — 1846,  2  voll.  E.  Freppel ,  Origene,  Paris,  1868.  2  voll.,  2.  ed. 
1875,  3.  ed.  1886.  Fr.  Böhringer ,  Die  griechischen  Väter  des  3.  und 
4.  Jahrhunderts,  i:  Klemens  und  Origenes  (Die  Kirche  Christi  und  ihre 
Zeugen,  i.  2,  1)  2.  ed.  Zürich,  1869.  B.  F.  Westcott,  Origenes,  in  Dictio- 
nary of  Christ.  Biogr.  (1887),  iv.  96 — 142..  For  Origen  and  Heraclas  cf. 
y.  Döllinger,  Hippolytus  und  Kallistus,  Ratisbon,  1853,  261  ff.  Preuschen, 
Bibelzitate  bei  Origenes,  in  Zeitschr.  für  die  neutestamentl.  Wissensch.' 
(1903),  iv.  79— 87.  F.  A.  Winter ,  Über  den  Wert  der  direkten  und  in- 
direkten Überlieferung  von  Origenes'  Büchern  Contra  Celsum  (Progr.), 
Burghausen,  1903,  i.  D.  Genet ,  L'enseignement  d' Origene  sur  la  priere, 
Cahors  (1903).  * 

1  Ib.,  vi.   23,   2.  2  Hier.,  De  viris  illustr.,  cc.   54  62. 

3  Em.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  8,  4.  i  Phot.,  Bibl.  Cod.   118. 

5  Phot.,  Collect,  et  demonstr.,   c.  9.  6  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  30. 

7  Paneg.  in  Orig.  cc.  7 — 15.  8  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  32,   2. 

9  Ib.,  vi.  33,   37.  10  Ib.,  vi.  39,   5.  M  Ib.,  vii.   1. 

12  Hier.,  De  viris  illustr.,  c.   54. 


I38  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

2.  THE  WORKS  OF  ORIGEN.  The  story  told  to  Epiphanius1  about 
the  6000  books  (ßißkooQ)  written  by  Origen  was  surely  an  exaggeration. 
The  catalogue  of  his  works  given  by  Eusebius  in  his  lost  life  of 
St.  Pamphilus2,  did  not  contain,  if  we  believe  St.  Jerome3,  2000  titles, 
and  the  catalogue  made  by  Jerome  himself4,  most  probably  from 
that  of  Eusebius,  does  not  mention  in  its  actual  shape  more  than 
800  titles;  it  is,  however,  very  defective,  and  perhaps  does  not  ex- 
hibit a  continuous  text.  It  is  certain  that  no  ecclesiastical  writer 
of  the  Ante-Nicene  period  equalled  Origen  in  literary  productivity. 
We  possess  to-day  but  a  small  remnant  of  his  works;  and  of  these 
fully  one  half  have  reached  us,  not  in  the  original  Greek,  but  in 
Latin  versions.  Eminent  writers  like  Jerome  and  Rufinus  were  his 
translators,  while  Basil  the  Great  and  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  co-operated 
in  producing  an  elegant  florilegium  of  his  works  known  as  the  Philo- 
calia  or  CQpiyevooQ  cpdoxaUa).  Whole  classes  of  his  writings  perished 
as  the  result  of  the  inimical  edict  of  Justinian  (543),  the  adverse 
judgment  of  the  Fifth  General  Council  (553),  and  the  attitude  of  the 
so-called  Gelasian  Decretal  de  libris  recipiendis  et  non  recipiendis. 
Origen  cultivated  with  special  zeal  the  field  of  biblical  text-criticism 
and  exegesis;  he  wrote  commentaries,  not  once,  but  often  and  in 
various  forms,  on  the  greater  part  of  the  Scriptures.  At  the  same 
time  he  wrote  a  series  of  apologetic,  polemical,  dogmatic  and  asceti- 
cal  works  —  in  a  word,  he  outlined  the  entire  field  of  theology. 
He  was  the  first  to  construct  a  philosophico-theological  system,  at  once 
uniform  and  comprehensive.  All  the  theological  movements  and 
schools  belonging  to  the  patristic  period  of  the  Greek  Church  are 
grouped  about  Origen  as  about  a  common  centre  of  union  or  diver- 
gency. He  does  not  belong  to  the  first  rank  of  stylists,  being  not 
only  very  prolix  in  the  treatment  of  his  subject,  but  also  diffuse 
and  pedantic  in  expression;  —  defects  that  are  probably  owing 
to  his  uninterrupted  oral  teaching.  Many  of  his  writings  were  not 
genuine  literary  labors,  but  ephemeral  performances,  dictations5,  or 
oral  discourses  copied  by  his  hearers6. 

Preuschen,  in  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Lit.,  i.  332—405.  The 
existing  editions  of  St.  Jerome's  works  give  Ep.  33,  only  in  fragmentary 
form  (cf.  Migne,  PL.,  xxii.  446  ff.).  The  catalogues  of  the  works  of  Varro 
and  Origen  were  first  published  by  Fr.  Ritschl  in  1848,  and  again  in  1849. 
It  is  on  his  labors  that  the  attempts  of  Redepenning  and  Pitra  to  re- 
construct Ep.  33  Jerome  are  based.  For  Redepenning ,  see  Zeitschr.  für 
die  histor.  Theol.  J1851),  xxi.  66—79,  and  for  Pitra,  Spicil.  Solesm.  (1855), 
iii.  311— 317.  With  the  help  of  new  codices  E.  Klostermann,  in  Sitzungs- 
berichte der  k.  preuß.  Akad.  der  Wissensch. ,  Berlin  1897,  pp.  855—870, 
undertook  to  reconstruct  the  catalogue  of  the  works  of  Origen.  The  Greek 
text  of  the  Philocalia  Origenis  of  Basil  the  Great  and  Gregory  of  Nazianzus 

1  Haer.  64,   63.  2  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  32,   3.  3  Adv.  Rufin.,  ii.  22. 

4  Ep.  33.  5  Ems.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  23,  2.  6  Ib.,  vi.  36,   1. 


§    39-      ORIGEN.  I39 

was  first  edited  by  J.  Tarinus,  Paris,  16 19,  and  recently  by  J.  A.  Robinson, 
Cambridge,  1893.  It  is  also  to  be  found  in  the  editions  of  Origen  (e.  g. 
in  Migne,  PG.,  xiv.  1309— 1316).  The  first  complete  editions  of  Origen, 
those  of  J.  Merlin,  Paris,  15 12,  and  G.  Genebrard,  Paris,  1574,  both  of 
which  have  often  been  reprinted,  furnish  only  a  Latin  version,  even  for 
those  writings  the  Greek  text  of  which  has  reached  us.  The  Maurist  sa- 
vants, Charles  de  la  Rue  and  his  nephew  Charles  Vincent  de  la  Rue,  were 
the  first  to  bring  out  a  complete  edition  of  Origen,  with  the  exception  of 
the  fragments  of  the  Hexapla,  Paris,  1733— 1759,  4  voll.  It  was  reproduced 
in  abbreviated  form  by  Fr.  Oberthiir,  Würzburg,  1780 — 1794,  15  voll.  The 
edition  of  C.  H.  E.  Lommatzsch ,  Berlin  1831 — 1848,  25  voll.,  is  a  much 
more  original  and  complete  work.  The  Maurist  edition,  with  numerous 
additions  (Hexapla,  Philosophumena,  Supplementum  ad  Origenis  Exegetica) 
is  reprinted  in  Migne,  PG.,  xi — xvii.  A  new  edition  of  the  works  of 
Origen  is  now  appearing  in  the  Berlin  Collection  of  early  ecclesiastical 
Greek  writers:  Origenes'  Werke  i — ii,  herausgegeben  von  P.  Koetschau, 
Leipzig,  1899.  Cf.  Koetschau,  Kritische  Bemerkungen  zu  meiner  Ausgabe 
von  Origenes'  Exhortatio,  Contra  Celsum,  De  oratione,  Leipzig,  1899, 
also  Koetschau,  in  Zeitschr.  für  wissensch.  Theol.  (1900),  xliii.  321 — 377; 
vol.  iii.,  edited  by  E.  Klostermann,  contains  the  homilies  on  the  Prophecy 
of  Jeremiah,  the  commentaries  on  the  Lamentations,  and  the  exposition 
of  the  Book  of  Kings,  Berlin,  1901 ;  vol.  iv.  Origenes'  Johannes-Kommentar, 
edited  by  E.  Preuschen,  Berlin,   1903. 

3.  CRITICAL  WORKS  ON  THE  BIBLE.  In  the  gigantic  enterprise 
known  as  the  Hexapla,  now  lost,  Origen  set  himself  the  task  of 
making  clear  at  a  glance  the  relation  of  the  Septuagint  to  the  original 
Hebrew  text;  he  thereby  hoped  to  establish  a  solid  foundation  for 
his  theological  interpretation  of  Scripture,  and  particularly  for  his 
polemic  against  the  Jews1.  For  this  purpose  he  copied  in  parallel 
columns,  first  the  Hebrew  text  in  Hebrew  letters,  then  the  Hebrew 
text  in  Greek  letters.  Then  followed  in  four  other  columns  the 
Greek  versions  of  Aquila,  Symmachus,  the  Septuagint,  and  Theo- 
dotion.  In  the  text  of  the  Septuagint  he  marked  with  an  obelus  or 
cancel  the  words,  verses  or  chapters  that  were  lacking  in  the  original 
Hebrew.  The  «lacunae»  or  gaps  in  the  Septuagint  text  which  were 
indicated  by  an  asterisk  were  filled  up  from  one  of  the  other  versions, 
mostly  from  Theodotion's.  For  some  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
he  added  a  fifth  version,  and  for  the  Psalms  a  fifth,  sixth  and  seventh2. 
From  its  six  columns  the  work  was  known  as  Hexapla  (k^anla,  sc 
yp(j.f±i±ara)  or  six-fold  writing.  This  great  enterprise,  begun  at  Alex- 
andria, is  said  to  have  been  finished  at  Tyre ;  therefore,  towards  the 
end  of  his  life3.  Very  probably  no  second  copy  was  ever  made 
of  the  entire  work.  The  fifth  column  (Hexaplar  recension  of  the 
Septuagint)  was  often  copied,  and  we  still  possess  some  fragments 
of  its  Greek  text.  The  greater  part  of  it  has  also  reached  us  in  a 
Syriac  version,  slavishly  literal,  made  in  616  or  617,  by  Paul,  bishop 

1  Orig.,   Comm.  in   Matth.,  xv.    14. 

2  Em.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.    16;  Hier.,  Comm.  in  Titum  ad  iii.  9. 

3  Epiph.,  De  mens,  et  pond.,  c.   18. 


I4O  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

of  Telia.  Origen  prepared  also  a  work  known  as  the  Tetrapla1, 
a  collation  of  the  four  principal  Greek  versions  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, those  namely  of  Aquila,  Symmachus,  the  Septuagint,  and 
Theodotion.  It  has  utterly  perished.  There  is  no  foundation  for  the 
opinion  of  Hug  that  Origen  undertook  a  revision  or  recension  of  the 
text  of  the  New  Testament. 

The  fragments  of  the  Hexapla  were  collected  by  B.  de  Montfaucon, 
Paris,  17 13,  2  voll.  (cf.  Migne,  PG.,  xv — xvi)  and  Fr.  Field,  Oxford,  1867 
to  1875,  2  voll.  More  important  than  the  appendices  of  J.  B.  Pitra  (1884) 
and  E.  Klostermann  (1894)  is  the  yet  unpublished  discovery  by  G.  Mercati 
of  a  Hexapla  fragment  of  the  Psalms.  G.  Mercati,  Un  palinsesto  ambro- 
siano  dei  Salmi  Esapli,  Turin,  1896,  in  Atti  della  R.  Accademia  delle  Scienze 
di  Torino.  The  same  writer  has  also  made  important  contributions  to  the 
history  and  text  of  the  Hexapla,  in  Note  di  letteratura  biblica  e  cristiana 
antica  (Studi  e  Testi  v),  Rome,  1901,  i  (pp.  1 — 7):  Una  congettura  sopra 
il  libro  del  Giusto;  ii  (pp.  8 — 16):  Sul  testo  ebraico  del  Salmo  140  (141); 
iii  (pp.  17  —  27):  Sul  canone  biblico  di  S.  Epifanio;  iv  (pp.  28 — 46):  D'alcuni 
frammenti  esaplari  sulla  va  e  via  edizione  greca  della  Bibbia  (there  is  laid 
claim,  for  the  Hexapla,  by  interior  and  exterior  reasons,  to  some  few  lines 
of  this  iv.  part  \  they  are  entitled  irspt  rrjc  e'  xal  i  Ixooasw?  aAAio? :  Migne, 
PG.,  lxxxiv.  29);  v  (pp.  47 — 60):  Sul  testo  et  sul  senso  di  Eusebio,  Hist, 
eccl.,  vi.  16.  J.  HaUvy,  L'origine  de  la  transcription  du  texte  hebreu  en 
caracteres  grecs  dans  les  Hexaples  d'Origene,  in  Journal  asiatique,  ser.  ix 
(1901),  xviii.  335 — 341.  Haldvy  was  opposed  by  J.  B.  Chabot,  ib.  349 — 350; 
and  replied  ib.  (1902),  xix.  134 — 136  140 — 144;  C.  Taylor,  Hebrew-Greek 
Cairo  Genizah  Palimpsests  from  the  Taylor-Schechter  collection,  including  a 
fragment  of  the  22.  Psalm  according  to  Origen's  Hexapla,  Cambridge,  1901. 
The  Syriac  version  is  of  very  great  importance  for  the  reconstruction  of  the 
Hexaplar  text  of  the  Septuagint ;  the  second  half  of  a  complete  copy  of  that 
version  was  published  in  photolithograph  by  A.  M.  Ceriani  (Monum.  sacra  et 
prof.  ex.  codd.  praes.  bibl.  Ambrosianae,  Milan,  1874,  vh\);  the  other  extant 
fragments  were  published  by  P.  de  Lagarde,  Bibl.  Syriaca,  Göttingen,  1892, 
pp.  1 — 256.  In  general,  for  the  history  of  the  Hexapla,  see  the  intro- 
ductions to  the  Old  Testament.  The  theory  of  Hug  is  refuted  by  Hund- 
hausen,  in  Wetzer  und  Weite,  Kirchenlexikon,  2.  ed.,  ii.  (1883),  700. 

4.  BIBLICO-EXEGETICAL  WRITINGS.  His  exegetical  writings  may 
be  divided  into  three  groups:  scholia,  homilies  and  commentaries. 
The  scholia  (ayoha  or  ayfiEtcDoeiQ),  called  excerpta  by  Jerome  and 
Ruflnus,  are  brief  notes  on  the  more  difficult  passages  or  the  more 
obscure  words.  The  homilies  (bßdiat,  homiliae,  tractatus),  are  ser- 
mons on  select  chapters  of  the  Bible.  The  commentaries  (tojuoc,  Volu- 
mina, libri)  are  detailed  and  often  exhaustive  studies,  illustrative  of 
the  biblical  text.  Unlike  the  more  popular  homilies,  they  contain 
philosophico-theological  disquisitions,  by  means  of  which  the  more 
intelligent  readers  may  discover  the  deeper  truths  of  Scripture2.  Origen 
wrote  scholia  on  Exodus  and  Leviticus3,  also  on  Numbers4.    Some 

1  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.    16,  44;  Epiph.,  De  mens,  et  pond.,  c.    19. 

2  Hier.,  Interpr.  hom.  Orig.  in  Ezech.,  prol.  3  Cf.   Catal.  in  Hier.    Ep.   33. 
4  Rufin.,  Interpr.  hom.  Orig.  in  Num.,  prol. 


§    39-      ORIGEN.  141 

fragments  of  these  may  yet  be  discovered  in  the  Catenae.  Some 
fragments  of  the  scholia  on  Exodus  are  met  with  in  the  Philocalia 
(c.  27)  i;  His  scholia  on  Numbers  were,  partially  at  least,  included 
by  Rufinus  in  his  translation  of  the  homilies  of  Origen  on  Numbers2. 
Origen  also  wrote  homilies  on  all  the  books  of  the  Pentateuch3, 
after  244  on  the  first  four  books,  on  Deuteronomy  about  233.  Of 
their  Greek  text  only  fragments  remain4,  though  they  might  be 
considerably  increased  by  a  more  careful  search  in  the  Catenae.  In 
the  meantime  there  are  extant  in  the  version  or  paraphrase  of  Ru- 
finus seventeen  homilies  on  Genesis 5,  thirteen  on  Exodus 6,  sixteen  on 
Leviticus7,  twenty-eight  on  Numbers8.  It  was  also  the  intention  of 
Rufinus  to  translate  those  on  Deuteronomy,  of  which  the  catalogue 
numbers  thirteen9.  Beside  the  seventeen  homilies  on  Genesis  the 
catalogue  of  his  works  mentions  mystic  arum  homiliarum  libros  2, 
which  also  dealt  with  Genesis10,  but  of  which  we  have  no  more 
exact  knowledge.  It  is  possible  that  the  homily  on  Melchisedech 
quoted  by  Jerome  n  was  one  of  them.  Finally  he  composed  a  com- 
mentary on  Genesis,  probably  in  thirteen  books,  the  first  eight  of 
which  were  written  at  Alexandria,  the  others  at  Caesarea 12.  He  did 
not  get  beyond  Gen.  v.  1  13.  Only  a  few  fragments  of  it  are  extant u, 
mostly  citations  in  the  Philocalia  (c.  14  23)  from  the  third  book. 
It  seems  that  on  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament  Origen 
delivered  or  wrote  only  homilies.  Rufinus  translated15  twenty-six 
homilies  on  Josue  that  were  probably  delivered  during  the  persecution 
of  Decius 16.  A  Greek  fragment  of  the  twentieth  homily  is  found  in 
the  Philocalia  (c.  12);  in  1 894,  Klostermann  discovered  notable  re- 
mnants of  the  first  four  and  the  last  eleven  in  the  Octateuch-Catena 
of  the  sophist  Procopius  of  Gaza.  There  exists  a  Latin  version 
made  by  Rufinus17  of  nine  homilies  on  Judges18  mentioned  about 
235  by  Origen  himself.  Between  these  nine  and  the  four  on  the 
first  book  of  Kings  the  Catalogue  places  eight  homilies  De  pascha, 
a  title  that  seems  enigmatic  if  only  by  reason  of  its  position.  Two 
homilies  on  the  first  book  of  Kings  have  been  preserved,  one  on 
I  Kings  i. — iL,  in  a  Latin  version  of  unknown  origin19,  the  other 
in  the  original  Greek,  on  1  Kings  xxviii.,  or  concerning  the  witch 
of  Endor  {nepi  ttjq  e^aarpcjud^oü)20.    Cassiodorus  mentions21  a  homily 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xii.   263-282.  2  Rufin.,  1.  c. 

3  Orig.,  Horn.   8  in  Luc.  *  Migne,  PG.,  xii.    161— 168  353 — 354,  al. 

5  Ib.,  xii.    145—162.  6  lb„  xii.   297 — 396. 

7  Ib.,  xii.  405  —  574.  8  Ib.,  xii.   583—806.  9  Rufin.,  1.  c. 

10  Rufin.,  Apol.,  ii.   20.  x\  Ep.   73,   2.  12  Ems.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   24,   2. 

13  Orig.,  Contra  Cels.,  vi.   49 ;   cf.  Hier.,  Ep.  36,   9. 

14  Migne,  PG.,  xii.  45 — 92.  15  Ib.,  xii.  823  —  948. 

16  Horn,  in  Ios.,  ix.   10.  ,7  Migne,  PG.,  xii.  951 — 990. 

18  Orig.,  Prolog,  in  Cant.,  in  Migne,  PG.,  xiii.   78.  19  Ib.,  xii.  995—1012. 

20  Ib.,  xii.   101 1  — 1028.  2l  Inst.,  i.   2. 


142  FIRST   PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

on  2  Kings,  one  on  the  second  book  of  Paralipomenon  * ,  a  homily 
respectively  on  the  first  and  second  book  of  Esdras;  all  translated2 
by  his  friend  Bellator.  The  twenty-two  homilies  on  Job  found  a 
Latin  epitomator  in  Hilary  of  Poitiers3,  but  of  this  epitome  only 
two  small  fragments  remain4,  and  remnants  of  the  Greek  text  seem 
to  be  still  found  in  the  Catenae.  —  Origen  treated  the  Psalms  in 
all  three  of  the  above-mentioned  ways5.  The  Catalogue  mentions 
scholia  on  Psalms  1 — 15,  and  on  the  whole  Psalter,  also  homilies 
on  various  Psalms.  In  all  he  wrote  120  homilies  on  63  Psalms.  He 
also  wrote  forty-six  books  of  commentaries  on  forty-one  Psalms. 
Elsewhere  Jerome  speaks6  of  a  commentary  on  Ps.  126,  and  a 
tractatus  Phe  liter  ae ,  probably  an  explanation  of  the  verses  of 
Psalm  118  that  began  with  the  Hebrew  letter  D.  Eusebius  mentions 
an  explanation  of  Psalms  1 — 25  written  when  Origen  was  still  resi- 
dent in  Alexandria 7.  Apart  from  an  endless  lot  of  fragments  in 
the  Catenae  there  is  extant  but  very  little  of  the  Greek  text  of  his 
various  writings  on  the  Psalms.  There  exist,  however,  in  a  Latin 
version  of  Runnus,  nine  homilies,  five  on  Psalm  36,  two  on  Psalm  37, 
and  two  on  Psalm  38;  they  date  approximately  from  240— 245  s. 
In  his  own  commentary  on  the  Psalms,  Hilary  of  Poitiers  made  an  ex- 
tensive use  of  the  labors  of  Origen9.  In  his  above-mentioned  Cata- 
logue Jerome  sets  down  seven  homilies  on  Proverbs,  a  commentary 
in  three  books,  a  De  proverbiorum  quibusdam  quaestionibus  librum  1 ; 
fragments  of  which  have  reached  us  almost  only  through  the  Ca- 
tenae. It  seems  that  the  scholia  and  eight  homilies  on  Ecclesiastes 
are  altogether  lost.  An  elegant  version  of  St.  Jerome 10  has  preserved 
the  two  homilies  on  the  Canticle  of  canticles.  In  the  Philocalia 
(c.  7,  1)  has  been  saved  a  fragment,  taken  from  some  otherwise 
unknown  youthful  work  of  Origen  on  the  Canticle  of  canticles11. 
Besides  some  Greek  Catenae-fragments  of  his  commentary  on  the 
latter  book,  we  possess  the  prologue,  the  first  three  books  and  a 
part  of  the  fourth ,  in  a  Latin  version  by  Runnus 12.  This  com- 
mentary was  originally  in  ten  books;  five  of  them  he  wrote  at 
Athens  about  240 ,  and  the  others  shortly  after,  at  Caesarea 13.  Of 
these  commentaries  Jerome  said14:  Origenes ,  cum  in  ceteris  libris 
omnes  vicerit,  in  Cantico  canticorum  ipse  se  vicit.  On  the  prophet 
Isaias  he  also  wrote  scholia ,  homilies  and  a  commentary 15.  The 
homilies   were    apparently    twenty-five   in    number16;    nine    of  them 

1  Cass.,  Inst.,  i.   2.  2  Ib.,   i.  6. 

3  Hier.,  Ep.  61,   2;  De  viris  Must,   c.   100.  4   Migne,  PL.,  x.   723  —  724. 

5  Hier.,  Comm.  in  Psalm.,  prol.  6  Ep.   34,    1. 

7  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   24,   2.  8  Migne,  PG.,  xii.   1319  — 1410. 

9  Hier.,  Ep.  61,   2;  De  viris  illustr.,   c.    100.  10  Migne,  PG.,  xiii.   35 — 58. 

11  Ib.,  xiii.  35—66.  '2  Ib.,  xiii.,  61—198. 

13  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  32,   2.  u  Interpr.  horn.   Orig.  in  Cant.,  prol. 

15  Hier.,  Comm.  in  Is.,  prol.  16  lb. 


§    39-       ORIGEN.  I43 

have  reached  us  in  a  Latin  translation  by  Jerome,  who  purged  them 
of  heterodox  sentiments  K  The  commentary  on  Isaias  was  composed 
at  Caesarea  about  235,  and  dealt  in  thirty  books  with  the  text  to 
Is.  xxx.  5  2.  A  few  small  fragments  of  it  are  found  in  the  text  of 
Pamphilus3.  Two  books  on  the  vision  in  Isaias  xxx.  6  ff.  were  held 
by  Jerome  to  be  spurious4.  —  An  Escurial  codex  of  the  twelfth 
century  has  preserved  for  us  the  Greek  text  of  nineteen  homilies 
on  Jeremias5,  delivered  by  Origen  after  244;  also  fourteen,  in  a 
Latin  version  by  Jerome6.  Twelve  of  the  Latin  homilies  (1  24 
8 — 14  16  17)  are  found  also  in  Greek.  The  other  two  (20  21)  are 
wanting  in  the  Greek  text  of  the  manuscript.  Cassiodorus  was  ac- 
quainted with  forty-five  homilies  on  Jeremias7,  and  the  Philocalia 
contains  (cc.  1  10)  two  fragments  of  the  thirty-ninth  homily  on  that 
prophet8.  —  Origen  composed  at  Alexandria  a  commentary  on  the 
Lamentations,  five  books  of  which  were  known  to  Eusebius 9.  Maxi- 
mus  Confessor  cites  a  tenth  book  of  the  same10,  but  the  only  frag- 
ments saved  are  apparently  those  in  the  Catenae.  Of  the  homilies 
on  Jeremias,  delivered  after  those  on  Ezechiel J  *,  fourteen  have  reached 
us  in  a  Latin  version  of  Jerome,  who  removed  from  them  the 
doctrinal  errors12.  Origen  also  began  at  Caesarea  and  finished  at 
Athens,  about  240,  a  commentary  on  Ezechiel  in  twenty-five  books 13. 
A  fragment  of  the  20.  book  is  met  with  in  the  Philocalia  (c.  n)14. 
The  ancients  say  nothing  of  any  work  on  Daniel.  After  244,  Origen 
wrote  at  Caesarea  a  commentary  on  the  twelve  minor  prophets,  of 
which  Eusebius15  could  find  «only  twenty-five  books»16.  The  Cata- 
logue of  Origen's  works  mentions  commentaries  on  all  the  minor 
prophets,  with  the  exception  of  Abdias.  The  only  known  fragment 
preserved  is  from  the  commentary  on  Osee  in  Philocalia  c.  8  17.  He 
wrote  a  special  opuscule  on  the  pretended  mystic  sense  of  the 
word  «Ephraim»  in  Osee18.  The  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew  was  illu- 
strated by  Origen  with  scholia,  twenty-five  homilies  and  a  commen- 
tary in  twenty-five  books  19.  The  commentary  was  composed  at  Cae- 
sarea20 after  244.  The  original  Greek  is  still  extant  in  part  (books  10  to 
17,  on  Mt.  xiii.  36  to  xxii.  33)21.    A  still  larger  portion  (Mt.  xvi.   13 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xiii.   219 — 254.  2  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  32,    I. 

3  Apol.  pro  Orig.,  cc.   5    7;  Migne,  PG.,  xiii.   217 — 220. 

4  Hier.,  Coram,  in  Is.,  prol.  5  Migne,  PG.,  xiii.   256—526. 
6  Ib.,  xiii.  255 — 542.              7     Inst.,  i.  3. 

8  Migne,  PG.,  xiii.  541  —  544.  9  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  24,   2. 

10  Schol.  in  Dion.  Areop.,  in  Migne,  PG.,  iv.  549. 

11  O/ig.,  Horn,  in  Ezech.,  xi.   5.  l2  Migne,  PG.,  xiii.  665—768. 

13  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   32,    1  —  2.  u  Migne,  PG.,  xiii.  663 — 666. 

15  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  36,   2.  16  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.   75. 

17  Migne,  PG.,  xiii.   825—828.  l8  Hier.,    Coram,  in  Hos.,  prol. 

19  Hier.,  Coram,  in  Matth.,  prol.  20  Eus.,  Plist.  eccl.,  vi.  36,   2. 

21  Migne,  PG.,  xiii.  835 — 1600. 


144  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

to  xxvii.  63)  exists  in  an  ancient  anonymous  Latin  recension  *. 
There  are  also  a  few  scattered  fragments  of  the  commentary  on 
St.  Matthew2.  Nothing  is  known  of  Origen's  labors  on  St.  Mark. 
Jerome  translated  thirty-nine  homilies  on  St.  Luke,  that  may  have 
been  delivered  shortly  after  233  3.  The  Catenae  have  preserved 
numerous  fragments  of  these  homilies,  that  apparently  numbered 
more  than  thirty-nine*.  He  wrote  also  a  commentary  on  St.  Luke 
in  five  books,  but  it  is  lost  with  the  exception  of  some  Catenae- 
fragments5.  —  For  St.  John  the  Catalogue  enumerates  scholia  and 
a  commentary  in  thirty-two  books6;  of  this  commentary,  besides 
small  fragments  of  various  books,  the  Greek  text  of  the  following 
books  1  2  6  10  13  19  (incomplete)  20  28  32  has  been  saved  for 
us  by  a  Munich  Codex  of  the  twelfth  or  thirteenth  century7.  The 
first  five  books  were  written  at  Alexandria,  it  is  thought  before  the 
year  228s;  but  in  the  time  of  the  persecution  of  Maximinus  (235 
to  238)  the  work  was  still  unfinished9;  very  probably  it  originally 
consisted  of  more  than  thirty-two  books  10.  —  Of  the  seventeen 
homilies  on  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  we  know  only  one  fragment 
of  the  fourth  preserved  in  the  Philocalia  (c.  7,  2) n.  We  possess 
the  fifteen  books  of  the  commentary  (written  after  244)  on  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans,  but  in  a  Latin  recension  in  ten  books,  made  by 
Rufinus12.  His  copy  of  the  original  Greek  of  this  commentary  con- 
tained a  text  both  incomplete  and  corrupt;  moreover  it  was  on  a 
Latin  version  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  that  Rufinus  based  his 
exposition.  The  Catalogue  mentions  eleven  homilies  on  the  Second 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  but  probably  we  ought  to  read  the  First 
Epistle18;  there  are  Catenae -fragments  of  homilies  on  the  latter. 
On  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  he  wrote  scholia 14 ,  seven  homilies 
and  five  books  of  a  commentary ;  fragments  of  the  first  book  of  the 
commentary  are  quoted  by  Pamphilus15.  In  his  commentary  on 
this  Epistle,  St.  Jerome  follows  Origen  closely16.  He  made  a  still 
more  copious  use  of  the  text  of  Origen  in  his  commentary  on  the 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians 17.  Origen  had  written  a  commentary  on  the 
latter  in  three  books;  Greek  fragments,  of  which  some  are  lengthy, 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xiii.  993-1800.  2  Ib.,  xiii.  829—834. 

3  lb.,  xiii.    1799  — 1902. 

4  Orig.,  Comm.  in  Matth.,   xiii.   29;   Comm.   in  Io.,  xxxii.   2. 

5  Hier.,  Interpr.  horn.   Orig.   in  Luc,  prol.   —   The  Catalogue  mentions   15  books. 

6  Hier.,  Interpr.  horn.  Orig.  in  Luc,   prol.  —  In  Ens.,  Hist,  ecc).,  vi.  24,    I,  for  22 
it  should  be  read  32. 

7  Migne,  PG.,  xiv.   21—830.  8  Comm.  in  Io.  i.  4;  vi.    1. 

9  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   28.  10  Orig.,  Comm.  in  Matth.  ser.,  c    133. 

11  Migne,  PG.,  xiv.  829—832.  »«  Ib.,  xiv.  831—   1294. 

13  Hier ,  Ep.  49,  3. 

11   Cf.  the  Catalogue,  and  Hier.,  Comm.  in  Gal.,  prol.;  Ep.    112,   4. 
15  Apol.  pro  Orig.,  c   5;  Migne,  PG.,  xiv.   1293— 1298.  l6  Hier.,  11.  cc 

17  Hier.,  Comm.  in  Epiph.,  prol.;  Adv.  Rufin.,   i.    16,   21;   iii.    11. 


§    39-      ORIGEN.  I45 

are  met  with  in  the  Catenae,  also  a  Latin  fragment  in  Jerome  *.  Ac- 
cording to  the  Catalogue  he  wrote  a  commentary  in  one  book  on 
the  Epistle  to  the  Phiiippians,  and  one  in  two  books  on  the  Epistle 
to  the  Colossians,  while  Pamphilus2  quotes  a  passage  from  a  third 
book  of  that  commentary.  Similarly,  the  Catalogue  mentions  a  com- 
mentary in  three  books  on  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  a 
long  fragment  of  which  is  quoted  by  St.  Jerome3.  He  also  wrote 
a  commentary  in  one  book  on  the  Second  Epistle  to  Thessalonians. 
The  same  Catalogue  indicates  two  homilies  on  Epist.  ad  Thess.  without 
distinguishing  to  which  one  they  belong.  He  wrote  a  homily  and 
a  commentary  in  one  book  on  the  Epistle  to  Titus;  Pamphilus4 
cites  five  fragments  from  it.  The  same  writer  has  also  preserved5  a 
fragment  of  a  commentary  in  one  book  on  the  Epistle  to  Philemon. 
It  would  seem  that  the  only  remnants  of  the  eight  homilies  on  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  are  two  quotations  in  Eusebius6.  Though, 
strangely  enough,  the  Catalogue  says  nothing  of  a  commentary  on 
Hebrews;  Pamphilus7  quotes  four  passages  from  it.  There  is  no 
indication  in  the  Catalogue  of  any  treatises  on  the  Catholic  Epistles 
or  on  the  Apocalypse.  It  is  certain,  however,  that  Origen  intended 
to  write  a  commentary  on  the  latter8. 

A  new  edition  of  the  exegetical  works  of  Origen  will  need  to  sift 
with  more  care  than  has  hitherto  been  used  the  Catenae-fragments  fre- 
quently referred  to  in  the  preceding  pages.  There  must  be  a  sifting  of 
the  genuine  from  the  spurious;  as  far  as  possible,  each  genuine  passage 
must  also  be  traced  back  to  its  proper  source.  Many  such  fragments  are 
found  in  the  De  la  Rue  edition  (Migne,  xii — xiii,  passim).  Additions  were 
made  by  Gallandi  and  Mai  {Migne,  xvii.  9 — 370:  Supplementum  ad  Ori- 
genis  Exegetica).  In  his  Analecta  sacra,  ii.  335 — 345  349 — 483;  iii.  1  to 
588,  Pitra  published  recently  from  Vatican  Catenae  lengthy  fragments  on 
the  Old  Testament  (Octateuch,  Job,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  the  Prophets).  Cf. 
Fr.  Loofs  in  Theol.  Literaturzeitung  1884,  pp.  459 — 463.  For  fragments 
of  New  Testament  Catenae  see  especially  J.  A.  Cramer,  Catenae  graeco- 
rum  Patrum  in  Nov.  Test.,  Oxford,  1838— 1844,  8  voll.  On  the  Catenae 
in  general  cf.  Preuschen  in  Harnack ,  1.  c,  403 — 405  835 — 842.  On  the 
extracts  from  the  homilies  on  Josue  found  in  Procopius  of  Gaza  see 
F.  Klostermann  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  Leipzig,  1894,  xii.  3,  2. 
The  homily  on  1  Kings,  c.  xxviii  (the  Witch  of  Endor) ,  was  re-edited 
(1886)  with  the  reply  of  St.  Eustathius  of  Antioch  by  A.  Jahn,  1.  c,  ii.  4. 
Origen's  commentary  on  the  Canticle  of  canticles  is  dealt  with  by  W.  Riedel, 
Die  Auslegung  des  Hohenliedes,  Leipzig,  1898,  pp.  52—66.  The  text- 
tradition  of  the  homilies  on  Jeremias  is  illustrated  by  F.  Klostermann ,  in 
Texte  und  Untersuchungen  (1897),  xvi.,  new  series,  i.  3.  For  the  ideas  of 
Origen  on  the  Book  of  Daniel  as  gathered  from  writings,  extant  or  lost, 
in   the    commentary  of  St.  Jerome  on  Daniel,  cf.  %  Lataix,  Le  commen- 

1  Hier.,  Adv.  Rufin.,   i.   28.  2  Apol.  pro  Orig.,  c.   5. 

3  Ep.    119,  9 — 10;   cf.   Orig.,  Contra  Cels.,  ii.   65. 

4  Apol.  pro  Orig.,  cc.    19.  5  lb.,  c.   6. 

6  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   25,    11  — 14.  7  Apol.  pro  Orig.,   cc.   3   5. 

8  Comm.  in  Matth.,   ser.   c.   49. 
Bardrnhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  IO 


I46  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

taire  de  St.  Jerome  sur  Daniel  11,  opinions  d'Origene,  in  Revue  d'hist. 
et  de  litterat.  religieuses  (1897),  ii.  268 — 275.  On  the  Greek  fragments  of 
the  homilies  on  St.  Luke  edited  by  A.  Thenn  in  Zeitschr.  für  wissensch. 
Theol.  (189 1 — 1893)  °f-  J-  Sickenberger ,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1896), 
lxxviii.  188 — 191.  For  a  new  edition  of  the  remnants  of  the  commentary 
on  St.  John  we  are  indebted  to  A.  E.  Brooke,  Cambridge,  1896,  2  voll. 
J.  A.  F.  Gregg,  The  commentary  of  Origen  upon  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephe- 
sians,  in  Journal  of  Theological  Studies  (1902),  iii.  233 — 234  398 — 420 
554—576,  began  a  republication  of  that  commentary;  its  fragments  had 
already  been  collected  by  Cramer  „from  the  Catenae.  For  the  Tractates 
Origenis  de  libris  SS.  Scripturarum  edited  by  Batiffol  and  Wilmart  in 
1900  cf.  §  55,  4.  Concerning  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament  in  Origen 
see  J.  P.  van  Kasteren,  in  Revue  biblique  (1901),  x.  412—423.  E.  Preu- 
schen,  Bibelzitate  bei  Origenes,  in  Zeitschr.  für  die  neutestamentl.  Wissensch. 
(1903),  iv.  79 — 87.  The  general  character  of  his  homilies  is  discussed 
by  Redepenning,  Origenes,  ii.  212 — 261.  Cf.  Westcott,  in  Diet,  of  Christ. 
Biogr.,  iv.  104 — 118,  where  the  reader  will  find  a  good  index  of  the  con- 
tents of  the  homilies  and  commentaries.  There  is  a  German  version  ot 
some  homilies  by  F.  A.  Winter,  in  G.  Leonhardi,  Die  Predigt  in  der  Kirche, 
Leipzig,  1893,  xxii.  C.  Jenkins,  The  Origen-Citations  in  Cramer's  Catena 
on   1  Corinthians,  Journal    of  Theological  Studies  (1904),  vi.   113 — 116. 

5.  GENERAL  ESTIMATE  OF  HIS  BIBLICAL  WRITINGS.  —  It  is  prin- 
cipally the  mystic  sense  of  the  Scriptures  that  Origen  seeks  to  ex- 
hibit in  his  exegetical  works;  the  historical  sense  he  almost  entirely 
neglects1.  Guided  by  the  analogy  of  Plato's  trichotomous  division 
of  man  he  felt  obliged  to  distinguish  in  the  Scriptures  a  triple  sense : 
somatic,  psychic  and  pneumatic2.  Practically,  his  theory  would  not 
work.  And  so,  in  view  of  the  division  o(  the  Cosmos  into  flesh  and 
spirit  (ala^yjzd  and  voyrdj,  he  was  wont  to  distinguish  in  the  Scrip- 
tures a  carnal  and  a  spiritual  sense3.  His  fatal  error  was  the  total 
abandonment  or  denial ,  in  many  places,  of  the  literal  or  historical 
sense,  in  favor  of  the  spiritual  sense4.  There  are,  he  maintained, 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures  repulsive  and  scandalous  and  impossible  sayings 
(oxdvdaAa  xac  npoaxofiujira  xac  dduvara) ,  the  carnal  interpretation 
of  which  is  intolerable;  when  interpreted  spiritually,  however,  they 
are  seen  to  be  only  the  integuments  of  deep  mysteries5.  Even 
the  Evangelists  frequently  set  forth  pneumatic  truth  in  somatic  false- 
hood6 (aco^ofiivou  TtoXhixcc,  tod  d.Xr}t%üc,  TTPSUfiauxou  iv  toj  (jco/iarcxw, 
ojq  <h  etitot  tlq,  (fisuoelj.  It  must  be  admitted  that  Origen  pos- 
sessed a  certain  knowledge  of  Hebrew,  though  it  did  not  excede 
very  modest  limits7.  For  the  comparison  of  the  Septuagint  and 
the  original  Hebrew  he  was  always  dependent  upon  the  authority 
of  others.     Indeed,   the  dominant  idea  of  the  Hexapla  is  their  apo- 

1  Hier.,  Comm.  in  Mai.,  prol. 

2  De  princ,  iv  ,   11;  Horn,  in  Levit.,  v.    1    5. 

3  Horn,  in  Levit.,  i.    1  ;   Comm.  in  Jo.,  x.  4. 

4  Horn,  in  Gen.  ii.  6;  De  princ,  iv.    12.  °  De  princ.,   iv.    15. 

6  Comm.   in  Jo.,  x.  4.  *  Horn,  in  Gen.,  xii.  4;  Horn,  in  Num.,  xiv.    1, 


§   39-     ORIGEN.  I47 

logetic  usefulness,  rather  than  the  gain  of  textual  criticism.  He  was 
all  the  less  inclined  to  entertain  the  idea  of  a  critical  study  of  the 
Septuagint  translation  on  the  basis  of  the  original  Hebrew,  since 
he  was  persuaded  that  the  text  of  the  Septuagint  was  divinely  in- 
spired 1.  Its  obscurities  and  solecisms  are  to  him  signs  of  special  my- 
steries. When  he  detects  a  variation  from  the  Hebrew  text  or  from 
New  Testament  quotations,  he  prefers  to  admit  falsification  of  the 
original  Hebrew  by  the  Jews,  or  a  corruption  of  the  manuscripts 
of  the  New  Testament,  rather  than  to  acknowledge  an  error  on  the 
part  of  the  Septuagint. 

Redepenning,  Origenes,  i.  232 — 324;  cf.  ii.  156 — 188.  A.  Zöllig  >  Die 
Inspirationslehre  des  Origenes.  Ein  Beitrag  zur  Dogmengeschichte  (Straß- 
burger theolog.  Studien,  v.  1),  Freiburg  i.  Br.   1902. 

6.  WORKS  against  PAGANS  and  jews.  —  An  apologetic  work 
in  eight  books  against  Celsus  (xara  KsXoou,  contra  Celsum)  has  been 
preserved  in  a  Vatican  codex  of  the  thirteenth  century2;  the  Philo- 
calia  has  also  preserved  lengthy  fragments  of  it,  equal  in  size  to 
about  one  seventh  of  the  whole  work.  Celsus,  a  Platonic  eclectic, 
had  published  about  178  a  work  entitled  «Veracious  Demonstration» 
(äXy]&7)Q  Xoyoo,).  From  Origen's  refutation  of  the  work  we  gather 
that  in  the  first  part  the  author  attacked  Christianity,  in  the  person 
of  a  Jew  who  took  his  stand  upon  the  racial  faith  in  the  Messias; 
in  the  second  part  he  undertook  to  show  the  hopelessness  of  the 
Messianic  idea  and  thereby  to  overthrow  the  cornerstone  of  Christia- 
nity; in  the  third  part  he  assailed  certain  specific  Christian  doctrines, 
while  in  the  fourth  he  defended  the  state- religion  of  the  heathens. 
As  is  stated  in  the  preface,  the  refutation  of  this  work  was  written 
by  Origen  at  the  request  of  his  friend  Ambrose,  during  the  reign 
of  Philippus  Arabs3,  probably  in  248,  and  follows  sentence  by  sen- 
tence the  text  of  the  »Demonstration».  It  falls,  therefore,  pre- 
scinding from  the  long  introduction  (i.  1 — 27),  into  four  parts  that 
correspond  with  the  division  of  the  work  of  Celsus  (i.  28  to  ii.  79; 
iii  to  v;  vi.  1  to  vii.  61;  vii.  62  to  viii.  71).  Both  in  ancient*  and 
modern  times,  it  has  been  pronounced  the  most  perfect  apologetic  work 
of  the  primitive  Church.  At  least,  Origen  has  nowhere  exhibited 
greater  learning.  His  calm  attitude  and  dignified  diction,  the  natural 
outcome  of  a  sense  of  intellectual  superiority,  affects  the  reader  favo- 
rably when  compared  with  the  passionate  invectives  of  his  opponent. 
In  this  same  work5  Origen  refers  to  a  discussion  with  some  learned 
Jews  in  presence  of  several  legal  arbiters.  It  was  probably  reduced 
to  writing,  but  we  have  no  more  accurate  knowledge  concerning  it. 

1  Comm.  in  Cant.  i. ;  Migne,  PG.,  xiii.  93.  2  Migne,  PG.,  xi.  641 — 1632. 

3  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  36,  2.  4  Eus.,  Adv.  Hierocl.  c.   1. 

5  Contra  Celsum  i.  45. 


I48  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

P.  Koetschau,  Die  Überlieferung  der  Bücher  des  Origenes  gegen  Celsus, 
in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  Leipzig,  1889,  vi.  1 ;  cf.  F.  Wallis  in  The 
Classical  Review  (1889),  iii.  392 — 398;  J.  A.  Robinson  in  The  Journal  of 
Philology  (1890),  xviii.  288 — 296.  The  editio  princeps  (Greek  text)  is  that 
of  D.  Haschet,  Augsburg,  1605.  A  new  edition  has  been  prepared  by 
Koetschau,  Leipzig,  1899  (Die  griech.  christl.  Schriftsteller  der  ersten  drei 
Jahrh.,  Origenes  I — II;  see  §  39,  2).  A  German  translation  was  made  by  J.  Rohm, 
Kempten,  1876 — 1877,  2  voll.  (Bibl.  der  Kirchenväter).  K.  J.  Neumann, 
Der  römische  Staat  und  die  allgemeine  Kirche,  Leipzig  1900,  i.  265 — 273 
(treats  of  the  time  and  occasion  of  its  composition),  jr.  Patrick,  The  apo- 
logy of  Origen  in  reply  to  Celsus,  London,  1892.  See  also  the  literature 
relative  to  the  work  of  Celsus:  Th.  Keim,  Celsus'  Wahres  Wort,  Zürich, 
1873.  B.  Aubi ,  Hist,  des  persecutions  de  l'Eglise,  ii.  La  polemique 
paienne  ä  la  fin  du  IP  siecle,  2.  ed.,  Paris,  1878.  E.  Pdagaud,  Celse, 
Paris,  1879.  P.  Koetschau,  Die  Gliederung  des  äXt){W}c  Xoyoc  des  Celsus,  in 
Jahrb.  für  protest.  Theol.  (1892),  xviii.  604 — 632.  J.Fr.  S.Muth,  Der  Kampf 
des  heidnischen  Philosophen  Celsus  gegen  das  Christentum,  Mainz,  1899. 
F.  A.  Winter,  Über  den  Wert  der  direkten  und  indirekten  Überlieferung 
von  Origenes'  Büchern  «Contra  Celsum»  (Progr.),  Burghausen,  1903,  i. 

7.  WORKS  AGAINST  HERETICS.  —  His  writings  against  heresy, 
and  the  records  of  his  oral  controversies  with  heretics,  are  known 
to  us  only  through  citations ;  thus,  Julius  Africanus  mentions  *  a  dis- 
putation on  an  unknown  subject  with  a  certain  Agnomon  (?)  Bassus. 
Origen  himself  tells  us  of  a  discussion  with  the  Valentinian  Candidus 
(in  the  Catalogue  it  is  called  Dialogus  adversus  Candidum  Valenti- 
nianum),  probably  at  Athens  about  240,  on  the  origin  of  the  Son 
from  the  Father,  and  the  possibility  of  the  devil's  conversion2.  Euse- 
bius  narrates  the  fact  of  his  colloquy  with  Berillus.  bishop  of  Bostra 
in  Arabia,    on  the  subject  of  Monarchianism,    about  the  year  244s. 

The  tradition  in  Epiphanius  (Haer.  66,  21)  that  Origen  refuted  the 
Manichseans,  and  that  he  wrote  against  Menander,  Basilides,  Hermogenes 
and  others,  took  its  origin,  very  probably,  in  the  fact  that  incidentally  his 
works  abound  in  anti-heretical  polemic.  Cf.  Theodoret.,  Haer.  fab.  comp, 
i.  2  4  19  25;  ii.  2  7;  iii.  1.  For  the  authorship  of  the  Philosophumena 
cf.  §  54,   1   3,  and  on  the  Dialogus  de  recta  in  Deum  fide  cf.  §  46,   2. 

8.  DOGMATIC  WRITINGS.  —  The  original  text  of  all  the  doctrinal 
writings  of  Origen  is  lost.  The  most  important  of  these  works  was 
the  De  Principiis,  izzp\  dpywv.  It  treated  in  four  books  of  the  funda- 
mental doctrines  or  principles  of  Christian  faith.  Only  some  meagre 
fragments  of  the  original  have  been  preserved,  mostly  in  the  Philo- 
calia  Origenis  (cc.  1  21).  The  whole  work  has  reached  us  in  a 
translation,  or  rather  a  free  paraphrase,  by  Rufinus4;  on  the  other 
hand  the  translation  of  St.  Jerome,  that  aimed  at  literal  correctness, 

'   Jul.  Afr.,  Ep.  ad  Orig.  c.    1  ;   Orig.,  Ep.  ad  Afr.   c.   2. 

2  Orig.,  Ep.  ad  quosdam  caros  suos  Alexandriam,  in  Rufin.,  De  adult,  libr.  Orig. ; 
Migne,  PG.,  xvii.  624  fr.;  Hier.,  Adv.  Rufin.,  ii.    18—19. 

3  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   33,  3;  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.   c.   60. 

4  Migne,  PG.,  xi.    in — 414. 


§    39-     ORIGEN.  I49 

has  shared  the  fate  of  the  original.  Only  a  few  fragments  of  it  are 
extant1.  On  the  foundations  of  the  apostolic  preaching,  as  roughly 
outlined  by  him  at  the  beginning  of  his  work,  Origen  undertakes  to 
construct  a  consistent  system  of  doctrine.  The  first  book  treats  dif- 
fusely of  God  and  the  world  of  spirits ;  the  second  of  the  world  and 
man,  their  renovation  by  means  of  the  Incarnation  of  the  Logos,  and 
their  end  or  scope ;  the  third  discusses  human  freedom  and  the  final 
triumph  of  the  good ;  the  fourth  is  devoted  to  a  theory  of  scriptural 
interpretation.  This  work  was  composed  at  Alexandria2,  about  230, 
and  is  the  earliest  attempt  at  a  scientific  exposition  of  Christian  doc- 
trine. By  reason,  however,  of  its  departure  from  the  lines  of  eccle- 
siastical tradition  it  aroused  in  equal  measure  both  opposition  and 
admiration.  It  was  at  Alexandria  also3  (before  231)  that  he  wrote 
his  ten  books  of  «Miscellanies»  (arptofiazzic,;  cf.  §  38,  3),  on  the  aim 
and  contents  of  which  the  few  extant  fragments  *  throw  no  clear  light. 
From  the  philosophical  doctrines  of  Plato  and  Aristotle,  Numenius 
and  Cornutus,  he  drew  proofs  of  the  truth  of  Christianity 5.  Various 
scriptural  texts,  e.  g.  of  Daniel  and  Galatians,  were  explained  by 
means  of  scholia^.  Before  writing  the  De principiis  he  had  composed 
at  Alexandria  two  books  on  the  resurrection,  nepi  dvaazdaecoQ1 .  The 
Catalogue  of  his  works  mentions  two  dialogues  on  the  same  subject 
dedicated  to  his  friend  Ambrose8.  Some  fragments  of  his  work  on 
the  resurrection  (De  resurrectione) 9  of  the  body  are  preserved  in  the 
homonymous  work  of  Methodius  of  Olympus;  others  in  a  treatise 
of  St.  Jerome10.  Methodius  defended  against  Origen  the  material 
identity  of  the  risen  body  with  that  we  now  possess. 

A  separate  edition  of  the  De  principiis  was  published  by  E.  R.  Rede- 
penning,  Leipzig,  1836.  C.  Er.  Schnitzer  had  already  undertaken  a  recon- 
struction of  it  in  German,  Stuttgart,  1835.  For  an  English  translation  of 
the  fragments  of  the  «De  principiis»  see  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (ed.  Coxe, 
1885,  iv.  239  384).  The  libellus  de  arbitrii  libertate  mentioned  by  Origen 
(Comm.  in  Rom.,  vii.  16)  is  identified  with  De  principiis,  iii.  1.  The  little 
work  «On  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit»  in  Athanasius  (Ep.  4,  9  ad 
Serap.)  corresponds  to  De  principiis,  i.  3.  E.  Riggenbach,  Der  trinitarische 
Taufbefehl  Mt.  xxviii.    19  bei  Origenes,  Gütersloh,  1904. 

9.  ASCETIC  WORKS  AND  HOMILIES.  —  Two  of  his  works  on 
practical  asceticism  have  reached  us,  and  their  text  is  fairly  well- 
preserved.      Though    not    exempt    from   the   influence   of  heterodox 

1  Hier.,  Ep.   124.  2  Ems.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   24,   3.  3  lb. 

4  Migne,  PG.,  xi.  99 — 108. 

5  Hier.,  Ep.  70,  4 ;  see  the  remarks  of  Eusebius  concerning  Origen's  critical  com- 
mentaries on  the  writings  of  pagan  philosophers,  in  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.    18,   3. 

6  Hier.,  Comm.  in  Dan.  ad  iv.   5;  ix.   24;  xiii.    1  ;   Comm.  in  Gal.,  prol. ;  ad  v.  13 

7  Orig.,  De  princ,  ii.    10,    1 ;  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   24,  2. 

8  Cf.  Theoph.  Alex.,  in  Hier.,  Ep.  92,  4. 

9  Migne,  PG.,  xi.  91  — 100.  10  Hier.,  Contra  Io.  Hieros,  cc.  25 — 26. 


150  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

ideas,  they  breathe  a  spirit  of  genuine  piety.  The  work  on  Prayer 
(itspt  ed%2jg)  l  was  composed  after  the  commentary  on  Genesis  (c.  23), 
probably  after  231,  and  was  dedicated  to  Ambrose  and  Tatiana, 
the  latter' s  wife  or  sister.  It  treats  in  the  first  part  of  prayer  in 
general  (cc.  3  — 17)  and  in  the  second  (cc.  18 — 30)  of  the  Lord's 
Prayer.  The  Exhortation  to  Martyrdom  (elg  paprupcou  TrpoTpenzrxbg 
Aoyoc;)2,  written  some  years  later,  appeals  with  powerful  eloquence 
to  Ambrose  and  to  Protoctetus,  a  presbyter  of  Caesarea,  who  had 
encountered 3  grave  perils  in  the  persecution  of  Maximinus  Thrax 
(235 — 238).  In  his  Catalogue  of  the  works  of  Origen  St.  Jerome 
mentions,  beside  the  exegetical  homilies,  other  homilies,  of  which  so 
far  as  is  known,  there  is  now  no  trace:  De  pace  horn,  i,  Exhorta- 
toria  ad  Pioniam,  De  ieiunio ,  De  monogamis  et  trigamis  horn,  ii, 
In   Thar  so  horn.  ii. 

The  work  on  Prayer  was  first  printed  at  Oxford  in  1686.  The  Ex- 
hortation to  Martyrdom  was  edited  by  J.  R.  Wetstein,  Basle,  1674.  A  new 
edition  of  both  has  been  brought  out  by  P.  Koetschau,  Leipzig,  1899  (Die 
griech.  christl.  Schriftsteller  der  ersten  drei  Jahrh. ,  Origenes  i — ii).  For 
a  German  version  of  the  same  cf.  J.  Kohlhofer ,  Kempten,  1874  (Bibl. 
der  Kirchenväter).  F.  A.  Winter ,  Über  den  Wert  der  direkten  und  in- 
direkten Überlieferung  von  Origenes'  Büchern  «contra  Celsum»  (Progr.), 
Burghausen,   1903,  i. 

10.  THE  LETTERS  OF  ORIGEN.  —  Origen  must  have  kept  up  a 
very  extensive  correspondence.  The  Catalogue  of  his  works  makes 
mention  of  several  collections  of  letters:  Epistolarum  eius  ad  diver sos 
libri  ix,  Aliarum  epistolarum  libri  ii,  Excerpta  Origenis  et  diver- 
sarum  ad  eum  epistolarum  libri  ii  (epistolae  synodorum  super  causa 
Origenis  in  libro  secundo).  Of  all  these  only  two  complete  letters 
have  reached  us,  one  to  Julius  Africanus4  and  one  to  St.  Gregory 
Thaumaturgus 5.  The  first  was  written  at  Nicomedia  (cc.  1  15) 
about  240.  It  defends  with  much  erudition  the  genuineness  and  cano- 
nicity  of  the  history  of  Susanna  (and  of  the  other  deutero-canonical 
parts  of  the  Book  of  Daniel)  against  objections  of  Julius  Africanus 
in  a  letter  addressed  to  Origen  himself6.  The  second  letter,  pro- 
bably written  in  the  same  year,  contains  fatherly  advice  to  his  former 
disciple  Gregory:  he  should  not  allow  his  interest  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures  to  flag,  and  should  look  on  the  study  of  the  profane 
sciences  only  as  a  means  towards  the  higher  end  of  the  knowledge 
of  the  Scriptures.  Several  other  letters  are  known  to  us  through 
citations  in  Eusebius,  Rufinus,  Jerome  and  others,  e.  g.  one  in  reply 
to  the  reproach  of  too  great  attachment  to  Hellenic  science7,  another 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xi.  416—561.  2  Ib.,  xi.   564—637. 

3  Em.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   28.  4  Migne,  PG.,  xi.  48—85. 

6  Ib.,  xi.  88  —  92.  6  Ib.,  xi.  41—48. 

7  Em.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.    19,    12 — 14. 


§    39-      ORIGEN.  151 

to  the  Emperor  Philippus  Arabs,  and  one  to  his  consort,  the  Em- 
press Severa  *,  letters  to  Pope  Fabian  and  to  very  many  other  bishops 
«in  the  matter  of  his  orthodoxy»  2. 

For  the  letter  to  St.  Gregorius  Thaumaturgus  see  J.  Dräseke ,  in 
Jahrb.  f.  prot.  Theologie  (1881),  vii.  102—126.  It  is  published  as  an 
appendix  to  P.  Koetschau's  edition  of  the  panegyric  of  St.  Gregory  on  Origen 
(pp.  40 — 44,  cf.  xv — xvii),  Freiburg  i.  Br.,   1894. 

11.  WORKS  OF  UNCERTAIN  AUTHORSHIP.  —  In  the  preface  to 
his  Liber  inter pretationis  hebraicorum  nominum ,  St.  Jerome  says 
that  it  is  a  Latin  version  of  a  lexicon  of  proper  names  of  the  Old 
Testament  made  by  Philo,  and  of  a  similar  New  Testament  lexicon 
made  by  Origen.  The  author  of  the  Quaestiones  et  Responsa  ad 
Orthodoxos,  attributed  to  St.  Justin,  makes  Origen  the  author  of  Ex- 
position of  names  or  measures  that  recur  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures 
(qu.  86;  cf.  82).  The  work  in  question  may  be  some  compilation 
by  a  later  writer  of  etymologies  of  biblical  proper  names,  proposed 
at  different  times  by  Origen.  It  seems  certain  that  in  their  actual 
shape  the  Greek  Onomastica,  first  edited  by  Martianay  (1699),  and 
recently  by  de  Lagarde  (1870  1887),  are  much  more  recent  than 
the  lexica  compiled  by  Jerome.  Victor  of  Capua3  cites  fragments 
ex  libro  tertio  Origenis  nep\  (poaecov  and  ex  Origenis  libro  primo 
De  pascha.  There  is  no  other  mention  of  a  work  by  Origen  nepl 
(ptjascov.  A  libellus  Origenis  De  pascha  is  mentioned  in  the  Liber 
Anatoli  de  ratione  paschali  (c.  i)4. 

On  the  lexicon  of  the  proper  names  in  the  New  Testament  see 
O.  Bardenhewer,  Der  Name  Maria,  Freiburg,  1895  (Bibl.  Studien,  i.  1), 
pp.  23 — 26;  Redepenning,  Origenes,  i.  458 — 461;  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neu- 
testamentl.  Kanons,  ii.  948 — 953. 

12.  PHILOSOPHICO-THEOLOG1CAL  IDEAS  OF  ORIGEN.  — It  was  with 
the  purest  intention  of  contrasting  the  false  Gnosis  with  true  science, 
and  of  winning  over  to  the  Church  the  educated  circles  of  Hellenism, 
that  Origen  undertook  the  combination  of  Hellenic  philosophy  with 
the  faith  of  the  Church.  Nevertheless,  his  doctrinal  system,  that  he 
imagined  to  be  both  Christian  and  ecclesiastical,  bears  the  marks  of 
Neoplatonism  and  Gnosticism.  According  to  him  it  is  a  necessary 
consequence  of  the  goodness  of  God  that  He  should  reveal  or 
communicate  Himself.  It  follows  likewise,  from  His  immutability, 
that  this  revelation  should  be  from  all  eternity.  Its  organ  is  the 
Logos,  other  than  the  Father5,  not  only  in  person  but  in  sub- 
stance (xar    ooGiav    xac   uTroxeifjtevov :   De   orat.  1.  c).     It   is   through 

1  Ib.,  vi.  36,  3. 

2  Ib.,  vi.  36,  4;  for  the  letter  to  Pope  Fabian  see  Hier.,  Ep.  84,    10. 

3  Schol.  vet.  Patr.,  in  Pitra,  Spicil.  Solesm.,  i.   268. 

4  Migne,  PG.,  x.   210. 

5  De  orat.  c.    15:  irepoq  too  Tzarpuq-.  Contra  Cels.,  v.  39:  dsorspog  tfeog. 


152  FIRST   PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

the  Logos  that  the  Holy  Spirit  proceeds  from  the  Father;  He  is 
inferior  to  the  Logos,  as  the  latter  is  inferior  to  the  Father1. 
The  next  degree  in  the  development  of  the  divine  unity  into  multi- 
plicity is  the  world  of  spirits,  to  which  belong  the  souls  of  men. 
They  were  all  created  from  eternity  and  in  equal  perfection.  They 
are  not,  however,  essentially  good ;  it  is  only  by  the  exercise  of  their 
free  will  that  they  choose  goodness.  In  the  past  they  abused  their 
freedom  in  manifold  ways.  In  consequence,  this  sensible  world  was 
created  as  a  place  of  purification  for  spirits  expelled  by  God  from 
their  original  home,  enveloped  in  matter  of  divers  kinds,  and  exiled 
in  more  or  less  gross  material  shapes,  to  which  class  our  human 
bodies  belong.  In  the  end,  however,  all  spirits  must  return  to  God. 
It  is  true  that  some  must  continue  to  undergo  a  process  of  purification, 
in  the  other  world,  but  eventually  all  shall  be  saved  and  transfigured. 
Evil  is  then  overcome ;  the  world  of  the  senses  has  fulfilled  its  purpose ; 
all  the  non-spiritual  elements  sink  or  fade  into  nothing ;  the  original  unity 
of  God  and  of  all  spiritual  being  is  restored.  Withal,  this  final  restitution 
of  original  conditions  (änoxazdüTacnQ,  restitutio)  cannot  be  truly  called 
the  end  of  the  world ;  properly  speaking  it  is  only  the  precarious 
term  of  an  evolution  that  moves  on  endlessly  between  apostasy  from 
God  and  return  to  Him.  —  Soon  after  his  death  the  famous  Origenistic 
controversies  broke  out,  and  found  an  echo  even  in  the  far-away  West. 
In  543  the  Synod  of  Constantinople  condemned  in  fifteen  «anathema- 
tisms»  an  equal  number  of  propositions  from  Origen2,  and  in  553 
the  Fifth  General  Council  ranked  him  with  «heretics»  in  its  eleventh 
«anathematism»  3. 

G.  Thomasius,  Origenes.  Ein  Beytrag  zur  Dogmengeschichte  des  3.  Jahr- 
hunderts, Nürnberg,  1837.  G.  Earners,  Des  Origenes  Lehre  von  der  Auf- 
erstehung des  Fleisches  (Inang.-Diss.) ,  Trier,  185 1.  F.  Harrer,  Die  Trinitäts- 
lehre  des  Kirchenlehrers  Origenes  (Progr.),  Regensburg,  1858.  J.  B.  Kraus, 
Die  Lehre  des  Origenes  über  die  Auferstehung  der  Toten  (Progr.),  Regens- 
burg, 1859.  4&  Vincenzi ,  In  S.  Gregorii  Nysseni  et  Origenis  scripta  et 
doctrinam  nova  recensio,  cum  appendice  de  actis  synodi  V.  oecum.,  Romae, 
1864 — 1869,  5  voll.  Knittel,  Des  Origenes  Lehre  von  der  Menschwerdung  ' 
des  Sohnes  Gottes,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1872),  liv.  97  —  138.  H.  Schultz, 
Die  Christologie  des  Origenes  im  Zusammenhange  seiner  Weltanschauung, 
in  Jahrb.  für  protest.  Theol.  (1875),  i.  193 — 247  369 — 424.  J.  Denis, 
De  la  philosophie  d'Origene.  Memoire  couronne  par  l'Institut,  Paris, 
1884,  vii.  730.  A.  Harnack,  Lehrbuch  der  Dogmengeschichte,  Freiburg, 
1888,  i.  2,  559—604.  M.  Lang,  Über  die  Leiblichkeit  der  Vernunft- 
wesen bei  Origenes  (Inaug.-Diss.),  Leipzig,  1892.  L.  Atzberger,  Gesch. 
der  christl.  Eschatologie  innerhalb  der  vornicänischen  Zeit,  Freiburg,  1896, 
pp.  366 — 456.  G.  Capitaine,  De  Origenis  ethica,  Münster,  1898.  J.  Tunnel, 
L'eschatologie  ä  la  fin  du  4e  siecle.  i :  L'eschatologie  origeniste,  in  Revue 
d'hist.   et   de  litterature  religieuses   (1900),   v.   99—127.     W.  Fairweather , 

1  De  princip.,  i.  3,  5.  2  Mansi,  SS.  Cone.  Coll.,  ix.  395—400. 

3  Ib.,  ix.  384. 


§    40.      DIONYSIUS    OF    ALEXANDRIA.  1 53 

Origen  and  Greek  Patristic  Theology,  London,  1901.  G.  Anrieh,  Clemens 
und  Origenes  als  Begründer  der  Lehre  vom  Fegfeuer  (Abhandlungen  für 
H.  J.  Holtzmann),  Tübingen,  1902.  F.  Nau,  Le  concile  apostolique  dans 
Origene,  in  Bull.  crit.  (1904),  pp.  435—438. 

13.  Ambrose.  —  This  oft-mentioned  friend  and  protector  of  Origen 
had  been  a  high  official  of  the  imperial  court  {Epiph. ,  Haer.  64,  3). 
Through  Origen  he  became  a  convert  from  Gnosticism  (Eus. ,  Hist,  eccl., 
vi.  18,  1).  He  left  a  correspondence  with  Origen  [Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  56). 
Short  fragments  of  two  letters  of  Ambrose  are  preserved  in  Orig.,  De  orat., 
c.  5;  Hier.,  Ep.   43,   1. 

14.  Trypho.  —  Besides  some  letters  this  disciple  of  Origen  wrote  many 
tractates  (multa  opuscula) ,  among  them  one  on  the  sacrifice  of  the  red 
cow  (Nm.  xix)  and  another  on  the  sacrifice  of  Abraham  (Gen.  xv.  9  ff). 
See  Jerome,  De  viris  ill,  c.  57.  So  far  as  is  known,  no  fragment  of  his 
writings  has  reached  us. 

15.  Ammonius.  —  In  his  Church  History  Eusebius  has  confounded  the 
Neoplatonist  philosopher  Ammonius  Sakkas  with  a  Christian  of  the  same  name. 
Among  other  books  the  latter  wrote  one  on  the  accord  between  Moses 
and  Jesus  (^sp!  tyj?  MwualoK  xal  'Irjaou  aujx<p  wvias :  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  19,  10). 
He  is  probably  identical  with  the  «Ammonius  of  Alexandria»  who  com- 
piled a  synopsis  of  the  gospels  (o-a  Tsaaapaov  Eua-f/sAiov)  based  on  St.  Matthew 
[Eus.,  Ep.  ad  Carpianum;  Hieronymus  is  inexact  in  De  viris  ill.,  c.  55). 
It  is  supposed  that  Ammonius  was  a  contemporary  of  Origen.  For  the 
Latin  gospel-harmony  printed  under  his  name  see  §  18,  3. 

§  40.     Dionysius  of  Alexandria. 

I.  HIS  LIFE.  —  He  was  born,  apparently,  before  the  end  of 
the  second  century1,  of  heathen  parents.  Through  diligent  reading 
and  earnest  investigation  he  was  led  to  the  Christian  faith2,  and 
began  to  frequent  the  school  of  Origen3.  From  231 — 232  he 
was  the  successor  of  Heraklas  as  head-master  of  the  Alexandrine 
catechetical  school 4  and  retained  the  office,  it  would  seem,  even  after 
he  had  succeeded  Heraklas  (247 — 248)  as  bishop  of  Alexandria5. 
The  rest  of  his  life  was  a  series  of  conflicts  and  sufferings.  In  250 — 251, 
he  escaped  by  flight  from  the  persecution  of  Decius6.  During  the 
persecution  of  Valerian  in  257 — 258  he  was  banished  to  Kephro 
in  Libya,  and  later  to  Colluthion  in  the  Mareotis,  «a  still  more  savage 
and  Libya-like  place» 7.  He  does  not  seem  to  have  returned  to 
Alexandria  before  March  262.  There  he  found  awaiting  him  a  con- 
dition of  civil  war,  famine  and  pestilence8.  He  was  too  ill  to  take 
part  in  the  Synod  that  met  at  Antioch  in  264 — 265  in  order  to  de- 
cide concerning  Paul  of  Samosata9;  he  passed  away  during  the  de- 
liberations of  the  Synod  10. 

Dittrich,  Dionysius  der  Große  von  Alexandrien,  Freiburg  1867.  Cf. 
Th.  Förster,  in  Zeitschr.  für  die  histor.  Theol.  (187 1),  xli.  42  —  76. 

1  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl,  vii.   27,   2.  2     Ib.,  vii.   7,   3. 

3  Ib.,  vi.   29,   4.  4  Ib.  5  Ib.,  vi,  35.              6  Ib.,  vi.  40. 

7  Ib.,  vii.   11.  8  Ib.,  vii.  21  —  22.  9  Ib.,  vii.  27,   2. 

10  Ib.,  vii.  28,  3. 


154  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

2.  WORKS  OF  DIONYSIUS.  —  He  was  honored  by  Eusebius  with 
the  title  of  Great  *■  and  Athanasius  called  him  a  Doctor  of  the 
Catholic  Church2.  His  greatness,  however,  was  more  in  the  man 
than  in  the  teacher.  He  bore  with  energy  and  success  the  part  that 
fell  to  him  in  the  ecclesiastical  difficulties  of  his  time,  and  showed 
himself  no  less  eloquent  and  firm  in  dealing  with  error,  than  he  was 
mild  and  sagacious  in  his  treatment  of  those  who  had  gone  astray. 
His  writings  are  all  occasional,  dictated  by  the  need  of  the  hour. 
His  diction  is  clear  and  lively,  and  while  in  doctrinal  exposition  he 
is  not  free  from  obscurity,  he  is  always  dominated  by  the  noblest 
and  most  self-sacrificing  spirit  of  zeal  for  the  salvation  of  souls.  Only 
a  few  fragments  of  his  writings  have  reached  us;  most  of  them  and 
those  of  chief  importance,  owe  their  preservation  to  their  insertion 
into  the  Church  History  of  Eusebius. 

These  fragments  are  found  in  Migne,  PG.,  x.  1233 — 1344,  1575 — 1602, 
but  in  a  very  imperfect  condition.  A  better  edition  is  that  of  S.  de  Magi- 
stris,  Rome,  1796,  overlooked  by  Migne.  For  a  list  of  the  fragments  missing 
in  the  edition  of  Migne  see  Pitra,  Analecta  Sacra  iii.  596.  Some  Syriac  and 
Armenian  fragments  current  under  the  name  of  Dionysius  were  collected 
and  translated  into  Datin  by  P.  Martin,  in  Pitra,  1.  c. ,  iv.  169 — 182, 
413 — 422  (cf.  xxiii  ff.).  See  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristlichen  Literatur, 
i.  409—427;  Th.  Förster,  De  doctrina  et  sententiis  Dionysii  M.  ep.  Alex. 
(Dissert,  inaug.),  Berlin,  1865  ;  Ch.  L.  Feltoe,  Aiovu<jiou  Xetyava.  The  Letters 
and  other  remains  of  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  in  Cambridge  Patristic 
Texts  (1904),  xxxv.  283. 

3.  HIS  PRINCIPAL  WORKS.  —  In  the  Books  on  Nature,  01  nepc 
(poaecoQ  Xoyoi 3,  as  the  fragments  in  Eusebius 4  show,  he  composed  a 
solid  and  thorough  polemic  against  an  Epicureanism  or  materialism 
based  on  the  atomic  system  of  Democritus.  The  work  was  probably 
composed  previous  to  247—248.  We  know  only  the  title  of  the 
Book  on  Temptations  (b  fttpi  Tzeipaapcov  AoyogJ5.  Through  a  later 
Catena  there  have  come  down  some  copious  fragments,  generally 
speaking  authentic,  of  his  commentary  on  Ecclesiastes 6,  written 
supposedly  before  247 — 248.  They  cover  Ecclesiastes  1,  1  to  3,  1 1  7. 
The  Catenae-fragments  on  the  Book  of  Job  are  not  genuine.  Two 
Books  on  the  Promises  (nep\  htaffekt&v  060  auyy-pappaxa),  written 
probably  in  253—257,  are  directed  against  a  «Refutation  of  the 
Allegorists»  (lleyyoq,  ullfiyopiaxcov) ',  composed  by  a  certain  Nepos, 
bishop  in  the  district  of  Arsinoe 8.  In  opposition  to  Origen  the  latter 
undertook  to  defend  the  historical  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures,  and 
maintained  that  in  the  Apocalypse  there  was  promised  after  the  Re- 

1  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.,  praef.  2  Ep.  de  sent.  Dion.,  c.   6. 

3  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.   26,   2. 

4  Praep.  Evang.,  xiv.  23—27;  Migne,  PC,  x.    1249— 1268. 

5  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.   26,  2.  6  Ib.,  vii.   26,   3. 

7  Migne,  PG.,  x.    1577—1588.  8  Eus.,  Hist.' eccl.,  vii.  24,    1. 


§    40-      DIONYSIUS    OF    ALEXANDRIA.  1 55 

surrection  a  millennial  reign  of  the  just  on  this  earth.  In  the  first  book 
of  his  work  Dionysius  argued  against  these  Chiliastic  dreams,  while  in 
the  second  he  commented  on  the  authority  of  the  Apocalypse.  Ac- 
cording to  him  it  was  composed  by  a  «holy  and  divinely  inspired 
man»,  though  not  by  the  Evangelist  John1.  His  own  orthodoxy 
was  the  subject  of  a  controversy  that  broke  out  apropos  of  some 
letters  he  wrote,  after  257,  in  reference  to  Sabellianism 2.  In  order 
to  emphasize  very  plainly  the  personal  distinction  between  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  Dionysius  had  made  use  of  expressions  and  similes  that 
implied  a  distinction  in  substance  and  reduced  the  Son  to  the  rank 
of  a  creature3.  For  this  a  complaint  was  laid  against  him  before 
Pope  Dionysius  (259 — 268),  and  he  was  invited  by  the  latter  to  ex- 
plain his  words.  This  he  did  in  a  reply4  to  the  Pope,  and  more 
fully  in  the  four  books  of  his  «Refutation  and  Defence»  fihy/og 
xai  anoXoyta) 5.  They  contain  an  exposition  of  his  thoroughly  orthodox 
teaching  concerning  the  Trinity,  and  seem  to  have  quite  satisfied  the 
Pope.  The  extant  fragments  have  come  down  to  us  chiefly  through 
citations  in  Athanasius  and  Basil  the  Great. 

The  first  and  most  complete  collection  of  the  fragments  of  the  work 
on  Nature  is  in  Routh ,  Reliquiae  sacrae,  iv.  393—437.  The  fragments 
preserved  by  Eusebius  were  translated  into  German  and  illustrated  at 
length  by  G.  Roch,  Die  Schrift  des  alexandr.  Bischofs  Dionysius  d.  Gr. 
«Über  die  Natur»  (Inaug.-Diss.),  Leipzig,  1882.  There  is  an  English 
translation  of  the  literary  remains  of  Dionysius  by  Salmond,  in  Ante-Nicene 
Fathers  (ed.  Coxe,  1896),  vi.  81 — 120.  For  the  spurious  Catenae-frag- 
ments on  Job  see  Routh,  1.  c,  iv.  439 — 454,  and  ib.,  iii.  390 — 400  [Migne, 
PL.,  v.  117 — 128)  for  the  remnants  of  the  «Refutation  and  Defence»,  taken 
from  Athanasius,  Basil  the  Great,  and  other  authors.  We  ought  probably  to 
add  a  fragment  from  «the  first  book  of  the  work  against  Sabellius  (-poj  2a- 
ßlXXtov),  mentioned  by  Eusebius  (Praep.  evang.,  vii.  19).  For  his  teaching 
concerning  the  Trinity  see  If.  Hagemann,  Die  römische  Kirche  ...  in  den 
ersten  drei  Jahrhunderten,  Freiburg,  1864,  pp.  411  —  432,  and  Dittrich, 
1.  c,  pp.  91— 115. 

4.  HIS  LETTERS.  —  Apropos  of  the  schism  of  Novatian  and  the 
question  of  the  treatment  of  the  Lapsi,  Dionysius  wrote,  after  251, 
a  series  of  letters,  in  which  he  urged  Novatian  and  his  followers  to 
submit  to  the  legitimate  Pope  Cornelius  (251 — 253)  and  advocated 
the  mildest  possible  treatment  of  those  who  had  fallen  during  the  per- 
secutions. His  Letter  to  the  anti-pope  Novatian  is  a  noble  and  memo- 
rable document 6.  He  wrote  also  a  letter  to  Fabius,  bishop  of  Antioch, 
some  fragments  of  which  are  preserved  in  Eusebius7.    After  256  he 

1  Fragments  of  the  second  book  in  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.  24 — 25;  Migne,  PG., 
x.    1237 — 1250. 

2  Ems.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.  6,   26,    1.  3  Äthan.,  Ep.  de  sent.  Dion.,  c.  4. 
4  Ib.,  c.    18.              5  Ib.,  c.   13;   cf.  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.  26,    1. 

6  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  45. 

7  Ib.,  vi.  41 — 42  44;  for  other  letters  cf.  ib.,  vi.  46. 


1^6  FIRST   PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

acted  as  peacemaker  in  the  conflict  concerning  the  validity  of  heretical 
baptism,  though  he  does  not  seem  to  have  thoroughly  grasped  the 
full  meaning  of  the  controversy.  Only  Eusebian  excerpts  of  the 
latter  correspondence  have  reached  us1.  Apropos  of  the  teachings 
of  Paul  of  Samosata  he  wrote  in  264—265  a  condemnatory  letter 
to  the  Church  of  Antioch2.  The  letter  to  Paul,  found  in  the  col- 
lections of  the  councils3,  is  an  Apollinarist  or  Monophysite  forgery. 
It  was  an  ancient  custom  of  the  bishops  of  Alexandria  to  send 
an  annual  letter  to  the  churches  of  their  dioceses.  Such  communi- 
cations were  known  as  Festal  Letters  (emazoXai  eopzaazixai)  and 
were  usually  issued  after  Epiphany.  They  announced  the  date  of 
Easter  and  the  beginning  of  the  preparatory  fast ;  they  also  contained 
instructions  concerning  the  Easter  festival  or  other  matters.  From 
a  few  of  these  Festal  Letters  of  Dionysius,  Eusebius  has  saved 
some  historical  data4.  In  a  Festal  Letter  to  Domitius  and  Didymus, 
written  in  the  reign  of  Decius,  before  the  Easter  of  25 15,  Dionysius 
promulgates  an  eight-year  paschal  cycle,  and  orders  that  the  feast 
shall  always  be  celebrated  after  the  Spring  Equinox6.  He  wrote 
in  his  own  defence  to  the  Egyptian  bishop  Germanus  who  had 
reproached  him  for  flying  from  the  persecution7.  In  a  letter  to 
Hermammon  and  the  brethren  in  Egypt,  Dionysius  «related  much 
concerning  the  iniquity  of  Decius  and  his  successors  and  then  made 
mention  of  the  peace  under  Gallienus» 8.  A  letter  to  Basilides, 
bishop  of  the  churches  of  the  Pentapolis9,  has  been  preserved 
in  its  entirety,  by  reason  of  its  incorporation  among  the  canonical 
documents  of  the  Greek  Church.  It  treats  principally  of  the  precise 
time  of  the  Resurrection  of  Our  Lord,  and  therefore  of  the  time 
when  the  fast  of  preparation  should  cease  and  the  paschal  festivities 
begin10.  Stephen  Gobarus  mentions  a  letter  of  Dionysius  to  Theo- 
tecnus,  bishop  of  Caesarea  in  Palestine,  written  after  the  death  of 
Origen,  and  dealing  favorably  with  his  memory11. 

The  Epistola  canonica  ad  Basilidem  is  in  Routh,  1.  c. ,  iii.  219 — 250, 
also  in  Pitra,  Iuris  eccles.  Graecorum  historia  et  monumenta,  Romae,  1864, 
i.  541  —  545;  cf.  548  f.  For  two  letters  in  a  Codex  Vaticanus  bearing  the 
name  of  Dionysius  but  belonging  to  Isidore  Pelusiota,  see  G.  Mercati, 
Note  di  letteratura  biblica  e  cristiana  antica  (Studi  e  Testi,  v.  2 — 86), 
Rome,  1 90 1.  G.  Holzhey,  in  Theol.  -  praktische  Monatsschrift  (1901),  xi. 
513 — 525,  concludes  from  the  relations  between  the  Didascalia  Apostolorum 
(§  46)  and  the  works  of  Dionysius  that  towards  the  end  of  his  literary 
career  he  recast  the  original  nucleus  of  the  Didascalia;  probably  it  was 
done  by  one  of  his  disciples,  shortly  after  his  death.    At  a  later  date  this 

1  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.  4 — 9.  2  Ib.,  vii.   27,   2. 

3  Mansi,  i.   1039— 1088.  i  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.   20—22. 

5  Ib.,  vii.   11,  20—25.  6  Ib->  vii-  2°-  7  Ib.,  vi.  40;   vii.    11. 

8  Ib.,  vii.  22,    12;  fragments  ib.,  vii.   1,    10,   23.  9  Ib.,  vii.   26,  3. 

10  Migne,  PG.,  x.   1271  — 1290.  «  Phot.,  Bibl.  God.  232. 


§41.  LATER  HEADMASTERS  OF  THE  CATECHET.  SCHOOL  OF  ALEXANDRIA.  1 57 

revised  Didascalia  was  enlarged  to  its  present  shape.  In  the  Revue 
d'Histoire  ecclesiastique  (1901),  ii.  808 — 809,  F.  X.  Funk,  expresses  grave 
doubts  concerning  this  theory  of  Holzhey. 

5.  Anatolius.  —  This  writer  appears  about  262  as  a  respectable  and 
influential  citizen  of  Alexandria.  We  meet  him  later  as  coadjutor  of  Theo- 
tecnus,  bishop  of  Caesarea  in  Palestine.  From  269  he  was  bishop  of  Lao- 
dicea  in  Syria.  He  was  well-skilled  in  philosophy,  the  natural  sciences 
and  mathematics,  and  he  wrote  some  works :  on  Easter  (irept  too  iria^a),  an 
introduction  to  arithmetic  (dpif>ji.r)Tixai  siaaYor/ai)  in  ten  books,  and  «spe- 
cimens of  his  erudition  and  ability  in  theology»  [Em:,  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.  32,  6; 
Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  73).  His  theological  writings  are  lost.  Of  very 
doubtful  authenticity  are  certain  mathematical  fragments  under  the  name 
of  Anatolius  [Fabricius- Hartes,  Bibl.  Gr.,  iii.  461  462 — 464;  Migne,  PG., 
x.  231 — 236).  Of  his  work  on  Easter,  Eusebius  has  preserved  a  long 
fragment  (Hist,  eccl.,  vii.  32,  14 — 19).  As  to  the  Liber  Anatoli  de  ratione 
paschali  printed  with  a  commentary  [Migne,  PG. ,  x.  209 — 232),  we  may 
believe  with  Zahn  (Forschungen  [1884],  iii.  177 — 196)  that  it  is  not  a 
translation  of  the  work  of  the  hishop  of  Laodicea,  although  in  the  second 
chapter,  almost  the  entire  Eusebian  paschal-fragment  is  cited.  Br.  Krusch 
maintains  (Studien  zur  christlich-mittelalterlichen  Chronologie,  Leipzig,  1880, 
pp.  311 — 316)  that  it  is  a  sixth-century  forgery,  made  in  England  during 
the  Brito-Roman  controversy  on  the  manner  of  celebrating  Easter.  We 
owe  to  Krusch  a  new  edition  of  the  Liber  Anatoli  (ib.,  pp.  316 — 327). 
Cf.  A.  Anscombe  and  C.  IL.  7 urner,  in  The  English  Historical  Review  (1895), 
x.  515 — 535  699—710:  T.  LLicklin ,  The  date  and  origin  of  the  Pseudo- 
Anatolius  «de  ratione  paschali»,  in  Journal  of  Philology  (1901),  xxviii. 
137 — 151.  He  finds  in  the  work  traces  of  an  original  composition  about 
300,  and  of  a  version  made  about  410.  There  is  an  English  translation 
by  Salmond,  of  the  fragments  of  Anatolius,  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (ed. 
Coxe,   1896),  vi.   146 — 153. 

§  41.     The  later  headmasters  of  the  catechetical  school  of  Alexandria. 

I .  THEOGNOSTUS.  —  In  an  anonymous  excerpt  from  Philippus  Sidetes 
(§  20,  1),  it  is  said  that  Pierius  was  the  successor  of  Dionysius  in  the 
catechetical  school  of  Alexandria,  and  that  Theognostus  succeeded 
Pierius.  In  all  probability,  however,  Theognostus  preceded  Pierius  * ; 
this  writer  is  not  mentioned  by  either  Eusebius  or  Jerome.  He 
left  seven  books  of  «Hypotyposes»  (unownaxJEiq,  cf.  §38,  4).  Ac- 
cording to  the  description  of  them  by  Photius2,  they  contained  a 
dogmatic  system  disposed  in  a  strictly  orderly  manner,  but  also 
strongly  influenced  by  Origenistic  theories.  The  first  book  treated  of 
God  the  Father,  the  second  of  the  Son,  the  third  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
the  fourth  of  angels  and  demons,  the  fifth  and  sixth  of  the  Incarnation 
of  the  Son,  the  seventh  of  the  divine  creation  of  the  world  (nepi 
Ssou  dr^ioopftaq).  Certain  citations  from  Theognostus  in  works  of 
Athanasius  and  Gregory  of  Nyssa  were  very  probably  taken  from 
the   «Hypotyposes». 

1  Äthan.,  Ep.  4  ad  Serap.  c.  9;  Ep.  de  deer.  Nie.  Syn.,   c.   25. 

2  Bibl.  Cod.   106. 


I58  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

For  the  «testimonia»  concerning  Theognostus  and  the  editions  of  the 
fragments  of  the  Hypotyposes  see  Migne,  PG.,  x.  235 — 242,  and  Routh, 
Reliquiae  sacrae  (2),  iii.  405 — 422.  For  an  English  translation  of  the  frag- 
ments of  Theognostus  see  Salmond ,  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (ed.  Coxe, 
1890),  vi.  155—156.  —  A.  Harnack,  Die  Hypotyposen  des  Theognost 
(Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  new  series,  ix.  3),  Leipzig,  1903.  Fr.  Diekamp, 
Ein  neues  Fragment  aus  den  Hypotyposen  des  Alexandriners  Theognostus, 
in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1902),  lxxxiv.  48 — 494. 

2.  PIERIUS.  —  He  was  a  priest  of  Alexandria,  in  the  time  of  Theonas, 
bishop  of  that  city  (281 — 300),  and  was  distinguished  as  an  ascetic, 
a  writer  and  a  preacher1.  His  ability  as  a  Christian  orator  caused 
him  to  be  known  as  «the  younger  Origen»2.  Philippus  Sidetes  (see 
§  41,  1)  and  Photius3  assert  that  he  was  head-master  of  the  cate- 
chetical school  at  Alexandria.  They  also  say  (Philip  in  an  extract 
first  edited  by  De  Boor)  that  he  was  a  martyr.  They  probably  do 
not  mean  that  he  actually  died  a  martyr's  death,  but  that  he  publicly 
confessed  Christ.  He  certainly  survived  the  persecution  of  Diocletian, 
for  we  meet  him  at  Rome  after  the  persecution  of  Diocletian4.  Photius5 
speaks  of  a  work  (ßtßX'tov)  of  Pierius  in  twelve  treatises  (Ibyoi)  containing 
Origenistic  errors  on  the  subordination  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  pre- 
existence  of  souls.  Eusebius  and  Jerome  may  be  interpreted  as  meaning 
that  it  was  a  book  of  sermons  6.  According  to  Photius,  one  fragment 
of  the  work  was  entitled  «on  the  gospel  of  St.  Luke»  (elq  to  xara 
AouxavJ,  another  «on  Easter  and  Osee»  feig  to  7tdo*/a  xai  tov  Qarji). 
St.  Jerome  says 7  that  the  latter  work  was  a  long  Easter  sermon 
on  the  beginning  of  the  prophecy  of  Osee.  The  titles  of  three  other 
works  are  mentioned  in  the  excerpts  found  in  Philippus  Sidetes;  the 
first  of  a  series  of  paschal  sermons  (b  rcpcoroQ  XoyoQ  rcov  scq  to  izaoya) 
on  the  ideas  of  St.  Paul  concerning  virginity  and  matrimony8;  on 
the  Mother  of  God  (mp\  ttjq  {reozoxouj ;  on  the  life  of  St.  Pamphilus 
fetg  tou  ßiov  tod  ayioo  ITa/MpiAoi)),  the  friend  of  Eusebius  and  disciple 
of  St.  Pierius  ». 

For  the  fragments  of  Pierius  see  Routh,  1.  c.  ,  iii.  423 — 435,  and 
Migne,  PG.,  x.  241 — 246.  Some  new  fragments  were  published  by  C.  de  Boor, 
in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  (1888),  v.  2,  165 — 184.  For  an  English 
translation  of  the  fragments  of  Pierius  see  Salmond,  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers 
(ed.  Coxe,  1896),  vi.  157.  —  Until  recently  the  above-mentioned  bishop, 
Theonas  of  Alexandria,  was  usually  identified  with  the  homonymous  bishop 
under  whose  name  had  long  been  current  a  Latin  letter  ad  Lucianum  cubi- 
culariorum  praeposilum,  first  published  by  d'Achery  in  1675,  whence  it  pas- 
sed unchallenged  into  the  Bibliothecae  patrum  [Routh,  1.  c,  iii.  437 — 449; 
Migne,  PG.,  x.  1567 — 1574).  This  letter  pretends  to  instruct  Lucian,  chief 
of  the  imperial  chamberlains ,    and  the  other  Christian  officers  at  court  as 

1  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.  32,  26  f.  30.  2  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,   c.   76. 

3  Bibl.  Cod.   118   119.  4  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.   76. 

5  Bibl.  Cod.    119.  6  Eus.,  1.  c.;  Hier.,  1.  c. 

7  L.  c.  and  Comm.  in  Hos.,  praef.  8  Hier.,  Ep.  49,  3. 

9  Phot.,  Bibl.  Cod.   118   119. 


§41.  LATER  HEADMASTERS  OF  THE  CATECHET.  SCHOOL  OF  ALEXANDRIA.  I  59 

to  the  manner  in  which  they  shall  act  in  order  to  preserve  and  strengthen 
the  favorable  sentiments  of  the  still  pagan  emperor  (Diocletian?)  towards 
Christians.  After  the  researches  of  P.  Batiffol,  in  Bulletin  Critique  (1886), 
vii.  155 — 160,  and  Harnack,  Theol.  Literaturzeitung  (1886),  xi.  319 — 326, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  letter  is  a  forgery  of  late  date,  perhaps 
from  the  pen  of  the  Oratorian  Jerome  Vignier  (f  1661):  cf.  §  3,  2.  — 
A.  Harnack ,  Der  gefälschte  Brief  des  Bischofs  Theonas  an  den  Ober- 
kammerherrn  Lucian,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  new  series,  Leipzig, 
1903,  ix.  3.  There  is  an  English  translation  of  the  Letter  of  Theonas  by 
Salmond,  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (ed.  Coxe,  1896),  vi.  158 — 161. 

3.  PETER  OF  ALEXANDRIA.  —  According  to  the  afore-mentioned 
«excerpts»  from  Philippus  Sidetes,  Theognostus  was  followed  by 
Serapion  in  the  headship  of  the  Alexandrine  catechetical  school,  and 
Serapion  by  Peter.  It  is  no  longer  possible  to  identify  Serapion. 
Peter,  on  the  other  hand,  was  bishop  of  Alexandria  and  «a  splendid 
model  of  a  bishop»  from  the  year  300  until  his  death  as  a  martyr 
in  3 1 1  K  We  still  possess  in  a  Latin  version  a  brief  letter  addressed 
by  Peter  to  his  people  shortly  after  the  outbreak  of  the  persecution 
of  Diocletian  {Febr.  303),  in  order  to  warn  them  against  Meletius, 
the  intruded  bishop  of  Lycopolis 2.  There  is  extant  also  an  epitome 
of  a  treatise  on  penance  (nepl  pszauoiagj,  of  the  year  306,  both  in 
Greek  and  in  a  Syriac  version.  Its  fourteen  canons  regulate  the  con- 
ditions on  which  those  who  had  fallen  in  the  persecution  might 
return  to  ecclesiastical  communion.  It  is  usually  called  Epistola  canonica  3. 
In  several  of  the  Greek  manuscripts  a  fifteenth  canon  is  added  from 
a  work  of  St.  Peter  on  Easter  feig  zb  ndoya,  ntpi  too  izäaya),  known 
to  us  also  from  other  sources.  In  the  Acts  of  the  Council  of  Ephesus 
(431)  there  appear  three  citations  from  a  work  of  Peter  on  the  Divi- 
nity (itepi  fteuT7)To<z)  4.  Two  other  citations,  extant  in  Syriac  only,  are 
apparently  spurious.  A  fragment  of  his  work  on  the  Coming  of  the 
Savior  (nspx  zrjg  acozrjpog  ypwv  imo^ptagj  is  quoted  by  Leontius 
of  Byzantium5.  In  his  work  against  the  Monophysites  this  latter 
writer  quotes  two  fragments  from  the  first  book  of  a  work  of  Peter 
written  against  the  pre-existence  and  the  antecedent  sinfulness  of  the 
soul  frcepl  too  pnqdh  itpoÖTzapyziv  ryv  <pvyjjv  fiTjde  apapTqaaaav  zouzo 
elg  ocopa  ßXrj&rjvai).  They  are  especially  interesting,  since  they  show 
that  Peter  opposed  with  energy,  not  only  in  preaching  but  in  writing, 
the  errors  of  Origen.  This  is  also  proved  by  seven  Syriac  fragments 
of  a  work  De  resurrectione,  which  rigorously  defends  the  material 
identity  of  the  post-resurrection  body  with  that  we  now  possess. 

Routhy  1.  c,  iv.  19 — 82,  and  Migne,  PG.,  xviii.  449 — 522.  The  best 
edition  (Greek  and  Syriac)  of  the  Epistola  canonica  is  that  of  P.  de  La- 
garde  ,    Reliquiae   iuris   eccles.  antiquissimae ,    Leipzig,    1856,    Greek   text 

1  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  ix.  6,   2,  cf.  viii.   13,   7;  vii.   32,  31. 

2  Migne,  PG.,  xviii.  509—510.  3  Ib.,  xviii.  467 — 508. 

4  Ib.,  xviii.   509 — 512.  5  Contra  Nestor,  et  Eutych.,  1.    1. 


IÖO  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

pp.  63 — 73,  Syriac.text  pp.  99—117.  See  also  Greek  text,  pp.  xlvi — liv. 
In  Pitra,  Analecta  sacra,  iv.  187 — 195  425 — 430,  P.  Martin  collected  and 
translated  other  fragments  (Syriac  and  Armenian).  For  an  English  trans- 
lation of  the  Acts  of  Peter,  the  Canonical  Epistle  and  some  fragments  see 
Hawkins,  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (ed.  Coxe,  1896),  vi.  261 — 285.  —  W.  E. 
Crum j  Texts  attributed  to  Peter  of  Alexandria,  in  Journal  of  Theological 
Studies  (1903),  iv.  387 — 397.  See  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur, 
i.  443 — 449.  In  his  Fragment  einer  Schrift  des  Märtyrerbischofs  Petrus 
von  Alexandrien,  Leipzig,  1901  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  new  series, 
v.  4,  2)  Karl  Schmidt  has  made  known  a  Coptic  text  (with  German  trans- 
lation) of  a  fragment  of  a  rigid  exhortation  to  the  observance  of  the  Sunday 
rest.  He  attributes  it  to  Peter,  who  is  clearly  indicated  in  the  text.  The 
fragment  itself  is  certainly  of  a  later  date ;  it  is  perhaps  the  source  of  the 
famous  Letter  of  Christ  that  was  alleged  to  have  fallen  from  heaven  (Ana- 
lecta Bollandiana  (1901),  xx.   101 — 103). 

4.  Phileas  of  Thmuis.  —  From  his  prison  in  Alexandria,  where  he 
died  a  martyr  about  307,  Phileas,  bishop  of  Thmuis  in  Lower  Egypt,  ad- 
dressed a  letter  to  his  church.  Eusebius  extracted  from  it  a  long  passage 
concerning  the  conflicts  and  triumphs  of  the  martyrs  at  Alexandria  (Hist, 
eccl.,  viii.  10;  oi.  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  78).  We  possess  also,  in  a  Latin 
version,  a  letter  written  in  common  by  the  imprisoned  bishops  Hesychius, 
Pachomius,  Theodorus  and  Phileas,  addressed  to  Meletius,  bishop  of  Lyco- 
polis,  who  had  been  conferring  orders  outside  his  own  diocese,  in  contra- 
vention of  the  ecclesiastical  canons  (Routh,  1.  c,  iv.  83 — in;  Migne,  PG., 
x.  1559 — 1568).  There  is  an  English  translation  of  the  literary  remains  of 
Phileas  by  Salmond,  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (ed.  Coxe,   1896),  vi.  161  — 164. 

5.  Hesychius.  —  An  Egyptian  Hesychius,  who  may  have  lived  towards 
the  end  of  the  third  century,  undertook  a  critical  revision  of  the  Septuagint 
[Hier.,  Praef.  in  Paral. ;  Comm.  in  Is.  ad  58,  n),  also  a  recension  of  the 
New  Testament  or  at  least  of  the  Gospels  (Hier.,  Praef.  in  Evang.).  We 
cannot  say  that  he  is  identical  with  the  Hesychius  just  mentioned  (cf.  Eus., 
Hist,  eccl,  viii.   13,  7,  and  the  Introductions  to  the  New  Testament). 

6.  Hierakas.  —  This  writer  lived  about  300  at  Leontopolis  in  the 
Nile  Delta,  where  he  gathered  about  himself  a  large  community  of  ascetics. 
He  wrote  commentaries  on  the  Scriptures  in  Greek  and  Egyptian  (Coptic), 
a  work  on  the  Hexaemeron,  many  new  Psalms  (<J/aXjj.ou?  rcoXXoug  veavrepixouc), 
and  perhaps  some  special  works  on  marriage  and  on  the  Holy  Spirit. 
He  carried  to  the  last  extreme  the  allegorism  and  spiritualism  of  Origen, 
rejected  marriage,  denied  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  claimed  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  had  manifested  Himself  in  Melchisedech,  and  excluded  from 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  those  children  who  died  before  attaining  the  use 
of  reason,  even  if  they  had  been  baptized.  Our  only  source  of  information 
concerning  Hierakas  is  the  account  in  Epiphanius  (Haer.  67 ;  cf.  Haer. 
55,  5;  H  7). 

§  42.     The  so-called  Apostolic  Church-Ordinance. 

This  is  the  title  given  by  its  first  editor,  J.  W.  Bickell  (1843),  to 
a  little  work  which  announces  itself  as  emanating  from  the  twelve 
Apostles.  The  complete  Greek  text  has  reached  us  in  only  one 
manuscript,  probably  of  the  twelfth  century.  The  title  it  offers  is: 
oa  dcarayat  at  Sua  KXijfievTOQ  xa\  xavuvsg  IxxkrjOLaavtXQi  zwv  äyiatv 
aTTOGToAajv.     The  first  words,    a\  dtarayat    at    dtä  KlrjfievToc,  xai,    are 


§    42.      THE    SO-CALLED    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH-ORDINANCE.  l6l 

surely  a  later  addition,  borrowed  from  the  so-called  Apostolic  Con- 
stitutions (§  75,  i).  Apart  from  the  introduction  (cc.  I — 3)  and  the 
conclusion  (c.  30)  the  work  falls  into  two  parts,  the  first  of  which 
(cc.  4— 14)  presents  moral  rules,  while  the  second  (cc.  15 — 29)  contains 
legal  ordinances.  The  moral  rules  are  thrown  into  the  form  of  a 
description  of  the  Way  of  Life  and  the  Way  of  Death,  or  rather  of 
the  Way  of  Life.  The  legal  ordinances  deal  with  the  qualities  of  a 
bishop  (c.  1 6),  the  presbyters  (cc.  17  18),  the  lector  (c.  19),  the  deacons 
(cc.  20  22),  the  widow-deaconesses  (c.  21),  also  the  proper  conduct  of 
the  laity  (c.  23),  and  the  question  of  the  participation  of  women  in 
the  liturgical  service  (cc.  24—29).  In  both  parts  each  phrase  or 
chapter  is  placed  in  the  mouth  of  an  Apostle  (e.  g.  'Icudwyg  elxsv, 
MarftoloQ  elrcev).  The  entire  first  part  or  description  of  the  Way  of 
Life  is  no  more  than  a  slightly  modified  revision  of  the  Two  Ways 
(§  6)  in  theDidache  (cc.  1,  1  to  4  8).  Harnack  attempted  to  identify 
in  the  second  part  fragments  of  two  earlier  canonical  documents. 
But  Funk  has  shown  that  this  is  impossible.  The  work  was  probably 
composed  towards  the  end  of  the  third  century,  and  with  equal  pro- 
bability in  Egypt.  In  that  land  it  seems  to  have  found  a  more  general 
acceptance  and  diffusion,  and  to  have  attained  the  dignity  of  a  local 
Canon  Law.  With  it  begins  the  Corpus  iuris  canonici  of  the  Coptic, 
Ethiopic  and  Arabic  churches  of  Egypt.  An  ancient  Syriac  version 
and  a  fragment  of  an  ancient  Latin  version  have  reached  us.  Jerome 
mentions1  a  pseudo-Petrine  work  known  as  Liber  iudicii  (i.  e.  Petri), 
and  Rufinus  knew2  a  Liber  ecclesiasticus,  entitled  Duae  viae  vel 
Indicium  secundum  Petrum  (al.  Indicium  Petri).  In  both  places  there 
is  probably  question  of  the  Apostolic  Church-Ordinance.  The  title 
Duae  viae  was  easily  suggested  by  the  contents  of  the  first  part; 
that  of  Indicium  Petri  came  probably  from  the  fact  that  Peter  is 
introduced  as  speaker  oftener  than  the  other  apostles  and  has  the 
last  word  (c.  30). 

For  editions  of  the  Greek  text  of  the  Apostolic  Church-Ordinance  see 
J.  IV.  Picked,  Geschichte  des  Kirchenrechts,  Giessen,  1843,  i-  io7 — I32i 
A.  P.  de  Lagarde,  Reliquiae  iuris  ecclesiastici  antiquissimae  graece,  Leipzig, 
1856,  pp.  74 — 79;  Pitra,  Iuris  ecclesiastici  Graecorum  historia  et  monu- 
menta,  Romae,  1864,  i.  75—88;  A.  Hilgenfeld,  Novum  Testamentum  extra 
canonem  rec. ,  fasc.  iv,  Leipzig,  1866,  pp.  93 — 106;  2.  ed.  1884,  pp.  110 
to  121.  It  is  also  reprinted  or  re-edited  in  the  editions  of  the  Didache 
(§  6,  4)  by  Philotheos  Bryennios,  Constantinople,  1883;  Harnack,  Leipzig, 
1884  and  1893;  Ph.  Schaff,  New  York,  1885  1886  1889  (the  latter  gives 
only  cc.  1 — 13  of  the  Apostolic  Church-Ordinance);  F.  X.  Funk,  Tübingen, 
1887;  y.  Pendel  Harris ,  Baltimore  and  London,  1887.  —  An  Ethiopic 
text,  with  a  Latin  version,  had  already  been  edited  by  y.  Ludolfus,  Ad  suam 
Historiam  Aethiopicam  antehac  editam  Commentarius ,  Frankfurt,  1691, 
314 — 323.  In  his  Apostolic  Constitutions,  London,  1848,  pp.  1 — 30, 
H.  Tattam  published  a  North-Egyptian  (Memphitic,  Bohairic)  text,  with  an 

1  De  viris  ill.,  c.    1.  2  Comm.  in  Symb.  Apost.,   c.   38. 

Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  I  I 


1 62  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

English  version.  On  the  basis  of  the  edition  of  Tattam,  P.  Bötticher 
(P.  de  Zagarde)  undertook  to  re-translate  this  text  into  Greek,  in  Chr.  C. 
J.  Bunsen,  Analecta  Ante-Nicaena,  London,  1854,  ii,  451 — 460.  A  South- 
Egyptian  (Theban,  Sahidic)  text  was  published  by  P.  de  Lagarde,  Aegyptiaca, 
Göttingen,  1883,  pp.  239 — 248  (without  a  translation),  and  by  U.  Bouriant, 
in  Recueil  de  travaux  relatifs  ä  la  philol.  et  ä  l'archeol.  egypt.  et  assyr., 
Paris,  1883 — 1884,  v.  202 — 206  (also  without  a  translation).  It  has  been 
shown  that  the  North-Egyptian  text  is  a  version  of  the  South-Egyptian; 
it  is  still  doubtful  whether  it  be  also  the  parent  of  the  Ethiopic  text. 
An  Arabian  text,  preserved  in  manuscript,  is  not  yet  published.  In  his 
Stromation  Archaiologikon ,  Rome,  1900,  pp.  15 — 31,  A.  Baumstark  pu- 
blished a  Syriac  text;  similarly  J.  P.  Arendzen,  An  Entire  Syriac  Text  of 
the  Apostolic  Church-Order,  in  Journal  of  Theological  Studies  (1901),  iii. 
59—80.  For  the  conclusion  of  a  very  ancient  Latin  text  see  F.  Hauler, 
Didascaliae  apostolorum  fragmenta  Veronensia  Latina,  Leipzig,  1900,  i. 
91  — 101.  A.  Krawutzky ,  Über  das  altkirchliche  Unterrichtsbuch  «Die 
zwei  Wege  oder  die  Entscheidung  des  Petrus»,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr. 
(1892),  lxiv.  359 — 445.  A.  Harnack,  Die  Quellen  der  sog.  apostolischen 
Kirchenordnung,  Leipzig,  1886  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen  ii.  5).  Funk, 
Kirchengeschichtl.  Abhandlungen  und  Untersuchungen  (1899),  ii.  236—251. 
Th.  Schermann,  Eine  neue  Handschrift  der  apostolischen  Kirchenordnung, 
in  Oriens  Christianus  (1902),  pp.  398 — 408. 

the  letter  of  PSENOSiRis.  —  This  is  perhaps  the  place  to  insert, 
among  the  writings  of  the  Alexandrines,  the  letter  that  the  priest  Pseno- 
siris  wrote  to  Apollo,  his  brother  in  the  Lord,  notifying  him  that  a  female 
fellow-citizen  (iroXrcixijv),  exiled  by  the  city-prefect  to  the  Oasis,  had  been 
placed  by  him  (Psenosiris)  in  the  hands  of  good  and  faithful  fossores  or 
grave-diggers.  This  letter  was  discovered  among  other  papyri  that  came 
from  Kysis  (Dusch-el-Kala)  in  the  Great  Oasis  and  are  now  in  the  British 
Museum.  They  bear  dates  varying  from  242  to  307.  It  is  coniectured 
that  the  woman  was  a  Christian  exiled  for  her  faith  to  the  Great  Oasis,  in 
which  case  it  must  be  question  either  of  the  persecution  of  Valerian  or 
that  of  Diocletian.  Most  of  those  who  have  written  about  this  document 
decide  for  the  latter  date. 

The  Letter  of  Psenosiris  was  edited  by  A.  Deissma?in ,  Ein  Original- 
Dokument  aus  der  diokletianischen  Christenverfolgung,  Papyrus  713  des 
British  Museum,  Tübingen  and  Leipzig,  1902;  Id.,  The  Epistle  of  Pseno- 
siris, an  Original  Document  from  the  Diocletian  Persecution,  London, 
1902;  P.  Franchi  de'  Cavalieri,  Una  lettera  del  tempo  della  persecuzione 
diocleziana,  in  Nuovo  Bullet,  di  archeologia  cristiana  (1902),  viii.  15 — 25; 
A.  Mercati,  in  the  Italian  translation  of  the  present  work,  Rome,  1903,  iii.  ix. 

B.    SYRO-PALESTINIANS. 
§  43.     Julius  Africanus. 

I .  HIS  LIFE.  —  Sextus  Julius  Africanus,  a  Lybian 1,  seems  to 
have  been  an  officer  in  the  expedition  of  Septimius  Severus  against 
the  Osrhoenes  (195).  He  enjoyed  intimate  relations  both  with  the 
royal  house  of  Edessa  and  the  imperial  family.  About  211 — 215  he 
visited  Alexandria  and  attended  the  lectures  of  Heraclas  (§  39,  i)2. 
During  the  reign  of  Alexander  Severus  (222 — 235)  he  held  an  office 

1   Suidas,  Lex.  s.  v.  Africanus.  -  Ens.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  31,   2. 


.      §    43-     JULIUS   AFRICANUS.  I63 

of  distinction  at  Emmaus-Nicopolis  in  the  plain  of  Philistia1.  Later 
Syriac  writers  have  been  misled  into  making  him  a  bishop  of  Em- 
maus;  he  does  not  seem  to  have  been  even  a  presbyter.  He  died 
after  240  (cf.  §  39,  10). 

H.  Gelzer,  Sextus  Julius  Africanus  und  die  byzantinische  Chronographie, 
Leipzig,   1880 — 1898,  i.  r — 11. 

2.  THE  CHRONOGRAPHIA.  THE  KeotoL  —  His  most  important 
work  was  a  universal  chronicle  in  five  books  completed  in  221  and 
entitled  Chronographia  (ypovoypayiai)  2.  Though  none  of  its  five  books 
is  intact,  more  or  less  lengthy  fragments  of  all  have  reached  us. 
The  purpose  of  Africanus  was  to  correlate  and  harmonize  Jewish  and 
Christian  history  with  the  history  of  the  Gentile  world.  He  found  in 
the  biblical  dates  the  sure  criterion  by  which  to  judge  the  historicity 
of  the  profane  dates  offered  in  the  current  manuals  of  chronology. 
The  entire  history  of  the  world,  according  to  Africanus,  covers  a 
period  of  six  thousand  years;  the  first  three  thousand  are  closed  by 
the  death  of  Phaleg,  «because  in  his  days  the  earth  was  divided» 
(Gen.  x.  25).  The  next  three  thousand  years  will  close  with  the  end 
of  the  world;  half-way  in  the  last  millennium,  i.  e.  in  the  year  5500, 
the  Son  of  God  became  man.  This  first  of  Christian  world-chronicles 
has  never  lacked  zealous  admirers,  and  industrious  use  has  con- 
stantly been  made  of  it.  It  rendered  substantial  service  to  the  Father 
of  Church  History;  in  modified  and  often  even  in  corrupted  forms 
it  has  dominated  ail  Byzantine  historiography.  —  He  dedicated  to 
Alexander  Severus  3  an  extensive  encyclopaedia  of  the  natural  sciences, 
medicine,  magic,  agriculture,  naval  and  military  warfare,  and  gave 
it  the  curious  title  of  «Embroidered  Girdles»  (xearot).  Photius 
says4  that  it  included  fourteen  books,  but  Suidas5  gives  the  number 
of  books  as  twenty-four.  Of  this  encyclopaedia  many  fragments,  some 
of  them  not  unimportant,  have  reached  us,  especially  through  later 
and  more  special  works,  e.  g.  the  collection  of  Greek  tacticians,  the 
compilation  of  excerpts  from  writers  on  agriculture  known  as  Geoponica, 
and  the  manual  of  veterinary  science  known  as  Hippialrica.  While 
the  vulgar  superstition  they  exhibit,  and  the  obscenities  that  swarm 
in  the  fragment  on  Aphrodisiac  secrets,  are  well-calculated  to  lessen 
our  respect  for  Africanus,  they  do  not  justify  us  in  suspecting  the 
authenticity  of  his  works,  or  attempting  to  divide  the  authorship  of 
the  xseroi  and  the  Chronographia. 

The  existing  collections  of  the  fragments  of  the  Chronographia  [Migne, 
PG.,  x.  63—94;  Routh,  Reliquiae  Sacrae  [2]  ii.  238—309)  are  unsatis- 
factory.    A  new  collection   is   expected   from  H.  Gelzer  (1.    a).     The  first 


1  Sync.   Chronogr.  ed.  Dindorf,  i.   676.  2  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  31,   2. 

3  Eus.,  Hist,   eccl.,  vi.  31,   1  ;  cf.   Geoponica,  1.    I,  praef. :  xs<ttoI  ?)  izapddo^a. 

4  Bibl.  Cod.  34.  5  Lex.,  1.  c. 

11  * 


1 64  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

part  of  this  work  of  Gelzer  deals  with  the  Chronography  of  Africanus  (supple- 
mentary matter  in  Jahrb.  f.  prot.  Theologie  [i88i],"  vii.  376 — 378);  the  second 
part  (1885 — 1898)  treats  of  his  Greek  and  Latin,  Syriac  and  Armenian 
successors.  There  is  no  satisfactory  collection  of  the  fragments  of  the  «Em- 
broidered Girdles».  They  are  enumerated  by  Gelzer,  1.  c,  i.  12  — 17,  and 
Preuschen,  in  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Lit.,  i.  508 — 511.  There  is 
an  English  translation  of  the  literary  remains  of  Africanus  by  Salmond,  in 
Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (ed.  Coxe,  1886),  vi.  146 — 153. 

3.  LETTERS.  DOUBTFUL  AND  SPURIOUS  WORKS.  —  An  entire  letter 
of  Africanus  to  Origen  has  been  preserved,  in  which  he  opposes  the 
genuineness  and  canonicity  of  the  history  of  Susanna  in  the  Book  of 
Daniel  (§  39,  10),  also  fragments  of  another  to  a  certain  Aristides1  in 
which,  on  the  basis  of  ancient  traditions,  he  undertakes  to  harmonize 
the  apparent  antilogies  in  the  genealogies  of  Our  Lord  as  given  in 
St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke.  He  makes  Jacob  (Mt.  i.  16)  the  natural 
father,  and  Heli  (Lk.  iii.  23)  the  legal  father  of  Joseph.  Both  letters 
are  mentioned  by  Eusebius2,  and  are  eloquent  monuments  of  an 
acute  and  searching  criticism  far  beyond  the  ordinary  contemporary 
level.  It  is  very  doubtful  that  he  wrote  commentaries  on  the  Gospels 
or  on  the  New  Testament,  as  the  Syriac  writers  (Dionysius  Bar  Salibi 
and  Ebedjesu)  maintain.  It  is  owing  to  an  interchange  of  names 
(Africanus  for  Aphroditiamus)  that  a  ridiculous  story  of  miraculous 
occurrences  in  Persia  at  the  time  of  the  birth  of  Christ  has  been 
attributed  to  our  chronographer3.  Nor  can  he  be  the  author  of  the 
Passio  S.  Symphorosae  et  Septem  filiorum  eius 4. 

Both  letters  of  Africanus  are  in  Routh,  1.  c,  ii.  225 — 237.  See  Fr. 
Spitta,  Der  Brief  des  Julius  Africanus  an  Aristides,  kritisch  untersucht  und 
hergestellt,  Halle,  1877.  For  the  writings  falsely  attributed  to  Africanus 
see  in  particular  Gelzer,  1.  c,  i.  18  f.  (Jahrb.  f.  prot.  Theol.  vii.  376  f.); 
Preuschen,  1.  c,  p.  513.  There  is  an  English  translation  of  the  letter  to 
Origen  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers,  (ed.  Coxe,  1896),  vi.  385  f. 

4.  Alexander  of  Jerusalem.  —  Alexander,  the  founder  of  the  theo- 
logical library  of  Jerusalem  (§  37),  was  for  a  brief  period  bishop  in  Cappa- 
docia  (Pus.,  Hist.  eccl.  vi.  n,  1 — 2).  About  212  he  became  coadjutor  to 
the  aged  bishop  Narcissus  of  Jerusalem  (ib.  vi.  8,  7),  and  succeeded  him 
shortly  after  in  that  office  which  he  held  until  his  glorious  death  as  a  martyr 
in  250  (ib.  vi.  39,  2 — 3).  Eusebius  mentions  many  of  his  letters;  one 
was  written  from  his  prison  in  Cappadocia  to  the  Christians  of  Antioch, 
congratulating  them  on  the  choice  of  their  new  bishop,  Asclepiades  (ib.  vi. 
11,  5  —  6).  Another  was  written  at  Jerusalem,  in  the  life-time  of  Narcissus, 
as  an  exhortation  to  the  Christians  of  Antinonia  in  Egypt  (ib.  vi.  11,  3). 
A  third  letter  was  written  to  Origen  (ib.  vi.  14,  8 — 9).  Both  Alexander 
and  bishop  Theoctistus  of  Caesarea  wrote  to  bishop  Demetrius  of  Alex- 
andria in  defence  of  lay-preaching  (ib.  vi.  19,  17  —  18).  St.  Jerome  (De 
viris  ill.,  c.  62)  seems  to  have  known  another  letter  of  Alexander  to  Demetrius 
concerning  Origen's  ordination  to  the  priesthood.  For  the  «testimonia» 
concerning  Alexander  see  Migne,  PG.,  x.  203 — 206  and  Routh,    1.  c. ,    ii. 

1  Migne,  PG.,  x.   51  —  64.  2  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  31,    1   3. 

3  Migne,  PG.,  x.  97—108.  4  Ib.,  x.  93—98. 


§  44-  pAUL  OF  SAMOSATA,  MALCHION  OF  ANTIOCH,  LUCIAN  OF  SAMOSATA.  l6$ 

159 — x79;  Harnacky  1.  c,  i.  505— 507  :  cf.  ii.  1,  221—223.  For  an  English 
translation  of  the  fragments  of  Alexander  see  Salmond ,  in  Ante-Nicene 
Fathers  (ed.  Coxe,  1896),  vi.   153 — 154. 

5.  beryllus  of  bostra.  —  About  244  Origen  converted  this  bishop 
from  Monarchianism  to  the  teachings  of  the  Church  (§  39,  7).  Beryllus 
left  letters  and  treatises  (Eus.,  Hist.  eccl.  vi.  20,  2),  also  letters  to  Origen 
(Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  60). 

§  44.     Paul  of  Samosata,  Malchion  of  Antioch,  Lucian  of  Samosata. 

1.  PAUL  OF  SAMOSATA.  —  He  was  a  «ducenarius»  of  Zenobia, 
queen  of  Palmyra,  and  from  260  held  the  see  of  Antioch.  Apparently 
he  committed  to  writing  his  teaching  that  Christ  was  by  nature  only 
an  ordinary  man1.  Vincent  of  Lerins2  was  acquainted  with  «Opu- 
scula»  of  Paul,  and  a  later  Greek  writer  has  left  us  some  Christo- 
logical   fragments  of  his  discourses   to  Sabinus  (npbc,  Zaßivov  Xoyoi). 

Mai,  Script,  vet.  nova  coll.  (1833),  vii.  1  68  sq.;  Routh,  Reliquiae  Sacrae 
(2)  iii.  329  f.  See  G.  D.  Rossini,  L'impresa  di  Palmira  e  Paolo  Samo- 
sateno,  in  Miscellanea  di  Storia  Eccles.  (1902 — 1903),  i.  109 — 133. 

2.  MALCHION  OF  ANTIOCH.  —  In  consequence  of  the  heresy  of 
Paul  three  synods  were  held  at  Antioch  from  264 — 269.  It  was  only 
in  the  last  of  these  synods  that  Malchion,  a  presbyter  of  Antioch  and 
a  famous  teacher  of  rhetoric  in  that  city,  was  able  to  convict  the 
cunning  sophist  and  to  tear  the  mask  from  him.  We  have  still  some 
fragments  of  the  discussion  between  Paul  and  Malchion,  taken  down 
by  shorthand  writers 3.  Paul  was  deposed  and  excommunicated ;  in  a 
long  encyclical  letter  the  synod  made  known  to  the  entire  Catholic 
Church  the  history  and  the  conclusion  of  the  whole  affair.  This 
encyclical  letter,  according  to  Jerome4,  was  the  work  of  Malchion; 
some  fragments  of  it  are  extant  in  Eusebius5   and   in  other  writers. 

For  the  remnants  of  the  encyclical  and  the  discussion  see  Migne,  PG. 
x.  247 — 260,  and  Routh,  1.  c.  iii.  300 — 316.  Another  fragment  of  the 
discussion  is  in  Pitra,  Analecta  sacra  iii.  600  f. ;  cf.  the  Syriac  fragments, 
ib.  iv.  183—  186  423 — 425.  There  is  reason  to  doubt  the  genuineness  of  a 
letter  written  to  Paul  «before  his  deposition»,  by  six  bishops:  Hymenaeus 
(of  Jerusalem),  Theophilus,  Theotecnus  (of  Caesarea  in  Palestine),  Maximus 
(of  Bostra),  Proclus  and  Bolanus  (Mansi,  Ss.  Concil.  Coll.  i.  1033 — 1040; 
Routh,  1.  c,  iii.  289 — 299).  These  six  bishops  are  mentioned  by  Eu- 
sebius (Hist,  eccl.,  vii.  30,  2)  among  those  who  forwarded  the  encyclical 
letter.  Cf.  P.  Pape ,  Die  Synoden  von  Antiochien  264 — 269  (Progr.), 
Berlin,  1903.  For  an  English  translation  of  the  fragments  of  Malchion  see 
Salmond,  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (ed.  Coxe,  1896),  vi.  168 — 172. 

3.  LUCIAN  OF  SAMOSATA.  —  Lucian,  a  native  of  Samosata,  pres- 
byter of  Antioch  and  founder  of  the  Antiochene  exegetical  school, 
shared  the  views  of  Paul  and  was  probably  excommunicated  at  the 

1  Ems.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.   27,   2.  2  Common,  c.   25,  al.  35. 

3  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.   29,   2.  4  De  viris  ill.,  c.   71. 

0  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.  30. 


1 66  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

same  time  as  the  latter.  Although  he  returned  to  the  communion 
of  the  Church,  he  did  not  cease  to  teach  a  decidedly  subordinationist 
theology,  and  is  the  true  father  of  Arianism.  His  martyrdom  at 
Nicomedia  (Jan.  7.,  312)  made  reparation  for  his  want  of  conformity 
to  the  teachings  of  the  Church1.  Like  Hesychius  (§  41,  5)  Lucian 
made  a  critical  revision  of  the  Septuagint  and  a  recension  of  the 
text  of  the  New  Testament,  or  at  least  of  the  Gospels2.  In  the 
fourth  century  this  revision  of  the  Septuagint  was  still  in  general 
use  through  all  the  churches  from  Antioch  to  Constantinople 3 ;  manu- 
scripts of  it  have  survived  to  our  day.  Jerome4  had  read  other 
works  of  Lucian :  De  fide  libelli  and  Breves  ad  nonnullos  epistolae. 
The  Chronicon  Paschale*  cites  the  conclusion  of  a  letter  of  Lucian 
sent  from  Nicomedia  to  the  Christians  of  Antioch.  The  statement 
of  Athanasius6  and  others  that  a  profession  of  faith  adopted  by  an 
Antiochene  synod  in  341  was  the  work  of  Lucian,  is  very  questionable. 

The  edition  of  the  Pentateuch  and  the  historical  books  of  the  Jewish 
canon,  published  at  Göttingen  in  1883  by  P.  de  Lagarde ,  was  based  on 
codices  that  C.  Vercellone  had  recognized  as  correlated,  and  that  A.  M. 
Ceriani  and  Fr.  Field  had  shown  to  be  copies  of  Lucian's  revision  of  the 
Septuagint.  The  Septuagint  text  in  the  Complutensian  Polyglot  is  based 
on  two  of  these  codices.  For  more  special  information  see  the  manuals 
of  Introduction  to  the  Old  and  New  Testament.  The  fragments  of  other 
works  of  Lucian  are  in  Roidh,  1.  c,  iv.  1 — 17.  Among  them  are  an 
Apology  for  Christianity,  prepared  at  Nicomedia  on  the  eve  of  his  death, 
and  taken  from  Rufinus'  paraphrase  of  the  Church  History  of  Eusebius 
(ix.  6);  also  an  oral  exposition  of  Job  ii.  9 — 10,  taken  from  the  commen- 
tary on  Job  by  Julian  of  Halicarnassus.  The  hypothesis  of  F.  Kattenbusch 
(Das  apostolische  Symbol,  Leipzig,  1894,  i.  252 — 273  392 — 395)  that  the 
baptismal  symbol  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  (vii.  41)  is  the  work  of 
Lucian,  is  most  probably  untenable.  For  Lucian  see  in  general,  Acta 
SS.  Jan.,  Venice,  1734,  i.  357 — 365,  and  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl. 
Lit.  i.  526 — 531;  cf.  Stokes,  in  Diet,  of  Christ.  Biography,  London,  1882, 
iii.  748 — 749,  also  (Cardinal)  Newman's  «History  of  the  Arians». 

§  45.     Pamphilus  of  Caesarea  and  the  Dialogus  de  recta  in  Deum  fide. 

I.  PAMPHILUS.  —  The  biography  of  St.  Pamphilus  in  three  books, 
by  his  disciple  and  friend  Eusebius,  has  perished;  only  references 
to  it  and  some  quotations  are  known7.  But  in  his  Church  History 
and  in  his  two  works  on  the  martyrs  of  Palestine,  Eusebius  has  handed 
down  to  posterity  tributes  of  affectionate  remembrance  for  Pamphilus. 
He  was  born  of  noble  parents  at  Berytus  in  Phoenicia,  studied  theo- 
logy8 at  Alexandria  under  Pierius  (§41,  2),  took  up  his  permanent 
residence  at  Caesarea  in  Palestine,    was   ordained   priest,    opened   in 

1  Ems.,  Hist,  eccl.,  viii.   13,   2;  ix.   6,   3.  2  Hier.,  Praef.  in  Evang. 

3  Hier.,  Praef.  in  Paral.  4  De  viris  ill.,  c.   77. 

5  Migne,  PG.,  xcii.  689.  6  Ep.  de  syn.  c.   23. 

7  Eus.,  De  mart.  Palestinae,   c.   11,  3;  Hier.,  Adv.  Rufin.,   i.  9. 

8  Phot.,  Bibl.   Cod.    118   119. 


§  45-  PAMPHILUS  OF  Ci*:SAREA  AND  THE  DIALOGUS  DE  RECTA  IN  DEUM  FIDE.     1 67 

that  city  a  theological  school,  and  in  the  persecution  of  Maximinus 
suffered  martyrdom  there  by  decapitation  (309),  apparently  after  a 
long  and  tedious  imprisonment.  The  greatest  of  his  literary  merits 
is  the  zeal  he  displayed  for  the  enrichment  and  enlargement  of  the 
library  of  Caesarea  (§  37).  While  in  prison  he  wrote,  with  the  help 
of  his  friend  Eusebius,  an  apology  for  Origen  (äTioXoyia  onep  'QptyhooQ) 
in  five  books  to  which,  after  the  martyr's  death,  Eusebius  added 
a  sixth.  The  work  was  dedicated  to  the  confessors  in  the  mines  or 
quarries  of  Palestine,  and  was  an  attempt  to  defend  the  theology  of 
the  Alexandrine  from  the  charge  of  heterodoxy  that  many  brought 
against  it.  Only  the  first  of  its  six  books  has  been  preserved,  and 
that  in  a  not  very  reliable  version  by  Rufinus  of  Aquileja.  Pho- 
tius  speaks  about  the  whole  work  1.  The  latter  says  quite  posi- 
tively that  Pamphilus  composed  the  first  five  books2.  In  view  of 
this  testimony  the  statement  of  St.  Jerome 3  that  the  Arian  Eusebius 
was  the  true  author  of  the  work,  is  manifestly  inexact  and  awakens 
a  suspicion  of  bias.  Gennadius  wrongly  says  4  that  Rufinus  translated 
a  work  of  Pamphilus  Adver  sum  mathematicos  ;  he  simply  misunderstood 
the  reasons  given  by  Rufinus5  for  his  translation  of  the  first  book 
of  the  Apology.  Finally,  in  his  biography  of  Pamphilus,  Eusebius 
made  mention  of  letters  of  Pamphilus  to  his  friends6. 

For  the  «testimonia  antiquorum»  concerning  Pamphilus  see  Preuschen, 
in  Hamack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Lit.  i.  543  —  550.  The  Passio  Ss.  Pamphili 
et  sociorum  [Migne,  PG.  x.  1533  — 1550)  is  a  fragment  of  the  larger  work 
of  Eusebius  on  the  Martyrs  of  Palestine,  and  has  been  re-edited  by  H.  De- 
lehaye,  in  Analecta  Bollandiana  (1897),  xvi.  129 — 139.  The  translation  by 
Rufinus  of  the  first  book  of  the  Apology  for  Origen  is  found  in  the  edi- 
tions of  Origen  [Migne ,  PG.,  xvii.  521 — 616).  It  is  also  (incomplete)  in 
Ronth,  Reliquiae  Sacrae  (2)  iii.  485  —  512;  iv.  339 — 392.  For  traces  of 
biblical  manuscripts  written  or  corrected  by  Pamphilus  cf.  W.  Bousset,  in 
Texte  und  Untersuchungen  (1894),  xi.  4,  45  —  73. 

2.  DIALOGUS  DE  RECTA  IN  DEUM  FIDE.  —  There  have  come  down 
to  us  in  Greek  and  Latin  texts,  under  the  name  of  Origen,  five  dia- 
logues against  the  Gnostics.  Their  Greek  title  is  dtaXe^tQ  'Adapauriou 
too  xal  'QptyevooQ  7iep\  r/jq  eIq  tisbv  op^Q  TriazswQ,  while  in  the  only 
manuscript  that  has  reached  us  of  the  Latin  version  made  by  Rufinus 
they  are  called  Libri  Adama?ttii  Origenis  adversus  haereticos  numero 
quinque.  In  these  dialogues  Adamantius  appears  as  the  protagonist 
of  Christian  faith.  In  the  first  two  he  attacks  the  doctrine  of  three 
(or  two)  principles  (dpyai)  as  held  by  the  Marcionites,  Megethius  and 
Marcus.  In  the  last  three  dialogues  he  combats  the  theses  of  Marinus, 
a  follower  of  Bardesanes.    Marinus  had  maintained  that  the  devil  or 

1  Bibl.  Cod.   118. 

2  Cf.  Ens.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   33,  4,  and  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.   75. 

3  Adv.  Rufin.,  i.  8 ;   al.  4  De  viris  ill.,  c.    17. 
5  Apol.,  i.    11.              6  Hier.,  Adv.  Ruf.,  i.  Q. 


1 68  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

evil  could  not  have  been  created  by  God,  that  the  Logos  could  not 
take  a  human  body,  that  the  body  could  not  rise  again.  In  the 
fourth  dialogue  he  interrupts  for  a  while  the  discussion  with  Marinus, 
in  order  to  dispute  with  Droserius  and  Valens,  followers  of  Valentinian, 
concerning  the  origin  of  evil.  The  Christian  disputants  had  chosen  as 
arbiter  Eutropius,  a  learned  heathen  philosopher;  he  considers  him- 
self obliged  to  yield  the  palm  of  victory  to  Adamantius.  The  author 
of  these  dialogues  is  evidently  very  well-skilled  in  dialectic  and  theo- 
logy. Zahn  has  shown  by  a  comparison  of  the  Greek  with  the  Latin 
text  that  in  general  the  latter,  though  a  translation,  represents  with 
fidelity  the  original  work,  while  very  plainly  the  Greek  text  has  been 
worked  over  quite  thoroughly.  Internal  evidence  shows  that  the  work 
was  composed  about  300 — 3 1 3  ;  the  revision  must  have  taken  place 
between  330  and  337.  The  author  can  no  longer  be  recognized,  but 
it  is  probable  that  he  lived  at  or  near  Antioch.  The  erroneous 
attribution  of  the  work  to  Origen,  accepted  by  Basil  the  Great  and 
Gregory  of  Nazianzus1,  is  owing  to  a  confusion  of  the  Church's 
theological  protagonist  with  the  author  of  the  dialogue.  Very  pro- 
bably, indeed,  the  latter  meant  to  indicate  by  the  name  Adamantius 
no  other  but  Origen  (cf.  §  39,  1).  At  the  same  time  his  inten- 
tion was  to  put  forth  the  famous  Alexandrine  only  as  sponsor  for 
the  doctrine  of  the  dialogue,  not  to  designate  him  as  the  author  of 
the  work. 

The  Greek  text  has  come  down  in  seven  (according  to  von  Bakhuyzen) 
codices  that  go  back  to  a  single  archetype.  The  editio  princeps  is  that 
of  J.  R.  Wetstein,  Basle,  1674,  reprinted  in  later  editions  of  Origen  [Migne, 
PG..  xi.  17 1 1 — 1884).  The  Latin  version  was  first  published  by  C.  P. 
Caspari,  Kirchenhistorische  Anecdota,  Christiania,  1883,  i.  1  — 129  (cf.  iii — iv). 
For  further  details  see  Th.  Zahn,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  Kirchengesch.  (1887  — 1888), 
ix.  193 — 239,  and  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  (1892),  ii.  2,  419—426. 
There  is  a  new  edition  by  W.  H.  van  de  Sande  Bakhuyzen,  Leipzig,  1901, 
in  Die  griechischen  christlichen  Schriftsteller  der  ersten  drei  Jahrhunderte. 

§  46.     The  Didascalia  apostolorum. 

Even  before  the  Apostolic  Church-Ordinance  (§  42)  had  been 
adopted  in  Egypt,  there  circulated  in  Syria  or  Palestine  a  pseudo- 
apostolic  work  of  similar  character,  but  much  larger  in  size.  Its 
subject-matter  was,  likewise,  Christian  morality,  the  constitution  of 
the  Church,  and  Christian  discipline.  The  original  Greek  text  has 
apparently  perished.  In  1854  P.  de  Lagarde  edited  an  ancient 
Syriac  version,  and  recently  Hauler  has  made  known  notable  frag- 
ments of  an  early  Latin  version.  These  fragments  confirm  the  con- 
clusion of  Funk  that  in  general  the  Syriac  version,  apart  from  its 
peculiar  division  into  chapters,  faithfully  represents  the  original  Greek. 
The  title  (lacking  in  the  Latin  version)  reads  in  Syriac:   «Didascalia, 

1  Philocal.  Orig.  c.   24,  8. 


§    46.      THE    DIDASCALIA    APOSTOLORUM.  1 69 

i.  e.  the  Catholic  Doctrine  of  the  Twelve  Apostles  and  holy  disciples 
of  our  Redeemer».  It  opens  with  general  exhortatory  advice  to  Christ- 
ians (c.  1  in  Syriac)  and  more  particularly  to  those  in  certain  states, 
especially  married  persons  (cc.  2—3).  Then  follow  provisions  con- 
cerning the  qualifications  for  the  office  of  bishop,  his  duties  and  his 
rights  (cc.  4 — 9),  on  lawsuits  among  Christians  (cc.  10 — 11),  on  the 
liturgical  assemblies  (cc.  12  — 13),  on  widows,  deacons  and  deacones- 
ses (cc.  14 — 16),  on  the  care  of  the  poor  and  in  particular  of 
orphans  (cc.  17 — 18),  on  the  martyrs  (cc.  19 — 20),  on  fasting  (c.  21), 
on  the  discipline  of  children  (c.  22).  The  last  chapters  contain  a 
warning  against  heresies  (cc.  23 — 25)  and  against  Jewish  or  Judaiz- 
ing  practices  (c.  26).  There  is  no  inner  cohesion  between  the 
chapters;  even  in  each  chapter  the  thought  of  the  writer  does  not 
progress  in  an  orderly  way.  According  to  c.  24  the  work  was 
composed  by  the  Apostles  at  Jerusalem ,  on  the  occasion  of  the 
apostolic  council  and  during  the  first  days  after  the  same.  Funk 
has  shown  that  it  was  written  in  Syria  or  Palestine  during  the  first 
half  of  the  third  century.  The  sources  at  the  disposition  of  the 
writer  were  the  Holy  Scriptures  (in  c.  7  he  even  quotes  the  story  of 
the  woman  taken  in  adultery,  John  vii.  53  to  viii.  11),  the  Didache, 
the  collection  of  the  Ignatian  Epistles ,  the  Dialogue  of  Justin  the 
Martyr,  the  apocryphal  Gospel  of  Peter,  the  fourth  book  of  the 
Sibylline  Oracles,  and  perhaps  the  «Memorabilia»  of  Hegesippus.  The 
work  was  highly  esteemed  and  much  used  in  Syria  and  Palestine. 
Early  in  the  fifth  century  it  was  worked  over  in  Syria  at  considerable 
length,  and  took  its  actual  shape  in  the  first  six  books  of  the  Apo- 
stolic Constitutions  (§  75,   1). 

The  Syriac  version  was  edited  from  a  codex  of  the  ninth  or  tenth 
century  by  P.  Bötticher  (P.  de  Lagarde),  Didascalia  Apostolorum  syriace, 
Leipzig,  1854.  At  the  same  time,  in  the  work  of  Chr.  C.  J.  Bunsen, 
Analecta  Ante-Nicaena,  London,  1854,  ii,  Bötticher  undertook  to  recon- 
struct the  original  Greek  of  the  Didascalia  (225 — 338:  Didascalia  purior). 
For  this  purpose  he  used  the  Syriac  version  and  the  first  six  books  of  the 
Apostolic  Constitutions ;  the  six  books  were  so  printed  as  to  distinguish  by 
different  kinds  of  type  the  original  text  from  the  additions  to  it  (45  —  224). 
In  many  details,  however,  both  these  recensions  of  Bötticher  are  untrust- 
worthy- cf.  Funk,  Die  Apostolischen  Konstitutionen,  Rottenburg,  189 1, 
pp.  40 — 50.  On  Didascaliae  apostolorum  fragmenta  Veronensia  Latina 
ed.  E.  Hauler,  Leipzig,  1900,  i,  see  Funk,  1.  c,  pp.  28—75.  For  the 
dependence  of  the  Didascalia  on  the  Didache  see  C.  Holzhey,  in  Compte 
rendu  du  IVe  Congres  scientifique  internat.  des  Catholiques,  Fribourg 
(Switzerland),  1898,  Section  I,  249—277  \  on  its  relations  to  the  Ignatian 
Epistles  see  Holzhey,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1898),  lxxx.  380—396. 
F.  X.  Funk,  La  date  de  la  Didascalie  des  Apotres,  in  Revue  d'histoire 
ecclesiastique  (1901),  ii.  798—809-,  here  he  assigns  it  to  the  second  half 
of  the  third  century.  P.  Corssen ,  Zur  lateinischen  Didascalia  Aposto- 
lorum, in  Zeitschr.  für  neutestamentl.  Wissensch.  (1900),  i.  339— 343- 
In    the    Canoniste    Contemporain    (1900— 1902)    F.   Nau   gives    a   French 


I^O  FIRST    PERIOD.      FIFTH    SECTION. 

version  of  the  Didascalia  (reprinted,  Paris,  1902).  A.  Jakoby ,.  Ein  bisher 
unbeachteter  apokrypher  Bericht  über  die  Taufe  Jesu,  nebst  Beiträgen 
zur  Geschichte  der  Didascalia  der  zwölf  Apostel,  und  Erläuterungen  zu 
den  Darstellungen  der  Taufe  Jesu,  Straßburg,  1902;  C.  Holzhey,  Dio- 
nysius  der  Große  und  die  Didascalia,  in  Theol.-praktische  Monatschr. 
(1901),  xi.  515—523;  cf.  §  40,  4.  The  Didascalia  Apostolorum,  edited 
from  a  Mesopotamian  manuscript  with  various  readings  and  collations  from 
other  mss.  by  M.  Dunlop  Gibson,  I:  Syriac  text;  II:  an  English  version 
(Horae  Semiticae),  Cambridge,  1903.  See  the  critique  of  Funk,  in  Theol. 
Quartalschr.  (1903),  lxxxv.  195 — 202.  A.  Baumstark,  Die  Urgestalt  der 
arabischen  Didascalia  der  Apostel,  in  Oriens  Christianus  (1903),  pp.  201 
to  208.  For  a  German  translation  and  commentary  see  Achelis  and  Flem- 
ming,  Die  syrische  Didascalia,  übersetzt  und  erklärt,  in  Texte  und  Unter- 
suchungen, Leipzig,  1904,  x,  2,  vm — 388.  Funk  has  also  published  what 
will  in  all  likelihood  ever  remain  the  standard  edition  of  the  «Didascalia 
et  Constitutiones  Apostolorum»,  2  voll.,  Paderborn,  1905. 

C.  WRITERS  OF  ASIA  MINOR. 
§  47.     St.  Gregory  Thaumaturgus  (the  Wonder- Worker). 

I.  HIS  LIFE.  —  In  his  panegyric  on  Origen  (cc.  5 — 6)  St.  Gregory 
gives  us  reliable  information  concerning  his  own  early  life.  Other 
details  are  gathered  from  Eusebius,  St.  Basil  the  Great,  St.  Jerome, 
Ruflnus  and  other  writers.  His  life  in  Greek  by  St.  Gregory  of 
Nyssa 1  is  of  little  historical  value  because  of  its  highly  legendary 
character!  Untrustworthy,  too,  is  an  ancient  anonymous  life  in 
Syriac,  that  has  come  down  to  us  in  a  sixth-century  manuscript, 
and  is  in  its  contents  very  closely  related  to  the  Greek  life.  Both 
these  lives  may  go  back  to  an  earlier  Greek  original  (Ryssel),  or 
both  may  represent  the  same  stage  of  oral  tradition  (Koetschau). 
Gregory,  in  youth  called  Theodore2,  was  born  about  213  at  Neo- 
caesarea  in  Pontus,  of  a  very  noble  heathen  family.  He  devoted 
himself  to  the  study  of  rhetoric  and  Roman  law.  In  order  to 
perfect  themselves  in  the  latter  study,  both  he  and  his  younger 
brother  Athenodorus  were  on  the  point  of  entering  the  law  schools 
of  Berytus  in  Phoenicia,  when  domestic  circumstances  altered  per- 
force their  resolution,  and  they  betook  themselves  to  Caesarea  in 
Palestine.  Here,  very  probably  in  233,  they  became  acquainted  with 
Origen,  and  were  fascinated  by  his  teaching.  Gradually  all  thought 
of  Berytus  and  jurisprudence  vanished  from  the  minds  of  the  im- 
pressionable youths.  They  clung  thenceforth  to  the  admirable  teacher 
who  had  won  them  over  to  the  studies  of  philosophy  and  theology, 
and  at  the  same  time  converted  them  to  Jesus  Christ.  Eusebius 
tells  us3  that  Gregory  and  his  brother  spent  five  years  at  Caesarea. 
On  their  separation  from  Origen,  in  238,  the  former  delivered  a 
public  panegyric  or  formal  profession  of  gratitude  in  the  presence  of 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xlvi.   893—958.  2  Ens.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  30.  3  lb. 


§    47-      ST-    GREGORY    THAUMATURGUS    (THE    WONDER-WORKER).         171 

his  master1.  Shortly  afterwards  they  were  both  made  bishops  in 
Pontus 2 ;  Gregory  in  particular,  became  the  first  bishop  of  his  native 
city  of  Neocsesarea.  The  two  biographies  already  referred  relate 
a  long  series  of  miraculous  happenings,  to  which  Gregory  owes  his 
later  title  of  Wonder- Worker  (b  ftaoparoupyoc,).  This  very  early  growth 
of  legend  testifies  more  forcibly  than  any  historical  document  could 
to  his  uncommonly  superior  personality  and  his  far-reaching  successful 
labors.  Gregory  and  Athenodorus  took  part  in  the  Antiochene  synod 
(264—265)  that  condemned  Paul  of  Samosata3;  they  may  also  have 
been  present  at  the  two  following  synods  held  for  the  same  purpose  4. 
Suidas  says5  that  Gregory  died  in  the  reign  of  Aurelian  (270 — 275). 
Before  his  death  he  had  completely  converted  his  native  city,  and  all 
Pontus  continued  to  reverence  his  memory6. 

The  Syriac  biography  of  Gregory  was  first  published  in  a  German 
version  by  V.  Ryssel,  in  Theol.  Zeitschr.  aus  der  Schweiz  (1894),  xi.  228 
to  254.  Later,  the  Syriac  text  was  published  from  the  same  codex,  by 
P.  Bedjan,  in  Acta  martyrum  et  sanctorum  (1896),  vi.  83 — 106.  For  the 
relations  between  the  Greek  and  Syriac  text  see  P.  Koetschau,  in  Zeitschr. 
für  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1898),  xli.  211  —  250,  and  H.  Hilgenfeld,  ib., 
452 — 456.  For  the  latest  researches  on  the  life  of  Gregory  cf.  Ryssel, 
Gregorius  Thaumaturgus,  Leipzig,  1880,  pp.  1 — 22,  and  Koetschau,  in  his 
edition  of  the  Panegyric  on  Origen,  Freiburg,  1894  (Sammlung  ausgew. 
kirchen-  und  dogmengeschichtl.  Quellenschriften  9),  pp.  v—  xxi. 

2.  LITERARY  LABORS.  —  Taken  up  with  pastoral  cares,  Gregory 
wrote  but  little,  as  far  as  we  know;  what  remains  from  his  pen  is 
mostly  of  an  occasional  character,  and  was  called  forth  by  practical 
needs.  However,  even  in  antiquity  the  labors  of  others  were  attributed 
to  him  and  sometimes  with  fraudulent  purpose. 

The  collected  writings  of  Gregory  were  first  edited  by  G  Voss,  Mainz, 
1604;  then  by  Fronton  du  Due,  Paris,  1622.  They  are  in  Gallandi,  Bibl. 
vet.  Patr.  iii.  377 — 469  (cf.  iii.  Proleg. ,  xxv — xxix;  xiv.  app.  119),  and  in 
Migne,  PG. ,  x.  963 — 1232.  Several  writings  and  fragments,  partly  un- 
known, have  been  recently  edited  by  P.  de  Lagarde  and  P.  Martin,  from 
Syriac  and  Armenian  sources;  they  bear  the  name  of  Gregory,  and  an 
account  of  those  printed  before  1880  may  be  read  in  the  careful  study  of 
Ryssel,  Gregorius  Thaumaturgus  (cf.  additional  material  in  Jahrb.  f.  protest. 
Theol.  1881,  vii.  565  sq.).  There  is  an  English  translation  of  the  literary  remains 
of  Gregory  by  Salmond,  in  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (ed.  Coxe,  1896),  vi.  9 — 74. 

3.  GENUINE  WORKS.  —  The  following  works  may  and  ought  to 
be  recognized  as  genuine  writings :  a)  The  Panegyric  on  Origen,  deliver- 
ed at  Caesarea  in  238,  at  the  time  of  his  leave-taking.  It  is  entitled 
in  the  editions7:  slg  'QptyevrjV  7ipo<j(pa)vr)TixbQ  xai  TiavTjyüptxoQ  Xoyoq, 
but  is  called  by  the  author  (c.  3,  31;  4,  40)  Xbyoq  y apiary ptoq,  or 
«discourse  of  thanksgiving».    The  thanks  of  the  speaker  are  directed 

1  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  65.  2  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  30. 

3  Ib.,  vii.   28,    1.  *  Ib.,  vii.  28,   2.  5  Lexicon,  s.  v.   Gregor. 

6  Basil.  M.,  De  Spir.  Sancto,   c.   29,   74.  7  Migne,  PG.,  x.   1049— 1 104. 


172 


FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 


first  to  God,  the  Giver  of  all  good,  then  to  the  guardian  angel  who 
accompanied  Gregory  and  Athenodorus  to  Caesarea,  and  finally  to 
the  great  teacher  who  inspired  both  with  a  love  for  (Christian)  philo- 
sophy. A  strong  current  of  living  and  affectionate  emotion  pulsates 
through  the  entire  discourse.  Its  diction  is  comparatively  pure  and 
noble,  in  spite  of  a  certain  straining  after  rhetorical  effect,  b)  The 
Creed  of  Gregory  (sxfteotQ  rrJQ  ttigtzcdq)  K  According  to  the  legendary 
life  by  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  2  this  formula  of  faith  was  revealed  to  him 
in  a  vision  by  the  Apostle  John,  at  the  command  of  the  Mother  of 
God.  Caspari  has  shown  that  it  was  composed  between  260  and  270. 
It  is  a  brief  but  clear  and  precise  exposition  of  the  Christian  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity,  c)  The  so-called  Canonical  Epistle  (kmovofy  xavovixi]  ; 
with  the  scholia  of  the  canonists  Balsamon  and  Zonaras)3.  It  was 
written  to  solve  the  doubts  of  a  bishop  as  to  the  proper  treatment  of 
those  Christians  who  had  been  guilty  of  infractions  of  Christian  discipline 
and  morality  during  the  raids  of  the  Goths  and  Boradi  (Borani)  into 
Pontus  and  Bithynia.  The  document  is  of  importance  first  for  the 
history  of  ancient  ecclesiastical  discipline,  then  as  affording  evidence 
of  the  mildness  and  tact  of  Gregory.  Dräseke  thinks  it  was  com- 
posed in  the  autumn  of  254.  d)  The  Metaphrase  of  Ecclesiastes 
(fiezäcppamq  elq  rou  exxXrjmaaTYjv  2o?.ofiwvTOQ) 4 ,  a  paraphrastic  ren- 
dering of  the  Greek  text  of  the  sacred  book.  The  manuscripts 
usually  attribute  it  to  St.  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  but  St.  Jerome5 
and  Rufinus 6  declare  it  to  be  a  work  of  St.  Gregory  Thaumaturgus. 
e)  The  work  «To  Theopompus  on  the  divine  incapacity  and  capa- 
city of  suffering»,  extant  in  Syriac  only,  a  philosophical  colloquy  as 
to  whether  the  divine  immunity  from  suffering  carries  with  it  neces- 
sarily an  indifference  to  the  affairs  of  mankind.  The  contents  of 
this  work  suggest  no  reason  to  doubt  its  genuineness;  it  was  pro- 
bably composed  before  his  consecration  as  bishop  of  Neocaesarea. 
Theopompus ,  otherwise  unknown,  is  described  (c.  6)  as  a  follower 
of  «Isocrates»,  whom  Dräseke  identifies  with  Socrates,  a  Gnostic 
and  a  Marcionite7.  The  latter  taught  that  from  all  eternity  God 
was  essentially  in  a  state  of  absolute  quietude  and  nowise  con- 
cerned himself  about  mankind,  f)  Lost  writings,  especially  a  dialogue 
with  ^Elianus  (itpuq  Alhavov  dcdXe&Qj  intended  to  win  over  the  latter 
to  the  Christian  faith;  it  seems  to  have  dwelt  particularly  on  the 
Christian  teaching  concerning  God8;  also  some  lost  epistolae^  of 
which  we  have  no  further  knowledge. 

1  Migne,  PG.,  x.  983—988. 

2  Greg.  Nyss.,  Vita  S.  Thaumat. ;  Migne,  PG.,  xlvi.  909  ff. 

3  Migne,  PG.,  x.    1019— 1048.  4  Ib.,  x.   987  —  1018. 

5  De  viris  ill.,  c.  65;   Comm.  in  Eccl.  ad  iv.    13  ff. 

6  Hist.  eccl.  Eus.,  vii.   25. 

7  Dial,  de  recta  in  Deum  fide,  sect.    1  ;  Migne,  PG.,  xi.    1729. 

8  Basil.  Magri:,  Ep.  210,   5.  9  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,   c.  65. 


§    47«      ST-    GREGORY    THAUMATURGUS    (THE  WONDER-WORKER).  1 73 

a)  The  «Discourse  of  Thanksgiving»  has  reached  us  only  by  means  of 
the  manuscripts  in  which  it  is  joined  to  the  work  of  Origen  against  Celsus 
(§  39 1  6).  For  excellent  separate  editions  we  are  indebted  to  *  A.  Bengel, 
Stuttgart,  1722,  and  P.  Koetschau.  A  German  version  of  the  Panegyric,  the 
Creed  and  the  Canonical  Epistle  was  made  by  J.  Margraf,  Kempten,  1875 
(Bibl.  der  Kirchenväter).  —  b)  The  Creed  has  come  down  to  us  in  Greek 
through  a  work  of  Gregory  of  Nyssa  (1.  c),  and  in  many  manuscripts ;  we 
possess  it  also  in  a  Syriac  version  and  in  two  early  Latin  versions,  one  by 
Rufmus  of  Aquileja,  the  other  anonymous.  For  all  these  texts  and  an 
exhaustive  demonstration  of  the  genuineness  and  integrity  of  this  Creed 
see  C.  P.  Caspari,  Alte  und  neue  Quellen  zur  Gesch.  des  Taufsymbols 
und  der  Glaubensregel,  Christiania,  1879,  PP-  I— 64.  The  Syriac  text  is 
also  in  Pitra ,  Analecta  sacra  (1883),  iv.  81  345  f.  —  c)  The  Canonical 
Epistle  is  found  in  Routh ,  Reliquiae  Sacrae  (2)  iii.  251 — 283;  in  Pitra, 
Iuris  eccles.  Graecorum  historia  et  monumenta,  Rome,  1864,  i.  562—566, 
and  in  Dräseke ,  Jahrb.  f.  protest.  Theologie  (1881),  vii.  724 — 756.  — 
d)  For  the  Metaphrase  of  Ecclesiastes  cf.  Ryssel,  Gregorius  Thaumaturgus, 
pp.  27 — 29.  —  e)  The  work  «To  Theopompus»  is  printed,  in  P.  de  La- 
garde,  Analecta  Syriaca,  Leipzig  and  London,  pp.  46 — 64,  from  a  Syriac 
codex  of  the  sixth  century,  a  German  version  is  given  by  Ryssel,  1.  c, 
pp.  71 — 99  (cf.  pp.  118— 124  137  f.  150 — 157).  Another  edition  of  the 
Syriac  text  is  that  of  P.  Martin,  in  Pitra ,  Analecta  sacra,  iv.  103 — 120 
363 — 376.  Cf.  Dräseke,  Gesammelte  Patrist.  Untersuchungen,  Altona  and 
Leipzig,  1889,  pp.  162 — 168.  —  f)  The  Arabic  fragment  of  a  Sermo  de 
Trinitate  (Migne,  PG.,  x.  1123  — 1126;  Ryssel,  1.  c,  43 — 46),  in  which  Mai 
thought  he  saw  a  fragment  of  the  dialogue  with  ^Elianus,  is  spurious. 

4.  DUBIOUS  WORKS.  —  Other  writings  or  fragments  await  a  more 
thorough  study  of  their  contents  and  character :  a)  The  brief  treatise 
on  the  soul  addressed  to  Tatian  (loyoc,  xecpaXaicüdrjQ  7tep\  <pu%iJG 
TTpoQ  TanauouJ  K  It  discusses  the  existence  and  nature  of  the  soul, 
and  expressly  prescinds  from  scriptural  proof.  In  modern  times  it 
has  been  customary  to  look  on  it  as  spurious,  even  as  of  mediaeval 
origin.  Recently  a  Syriac  version  has  been  discovered  in  a  codex  of 
the  seventh  century ;  it  is  also  possible  that  Procopius  of  Gaza  (about 
465 — 528)  cites  the  Greek  text  as  a  work  of  our  Gregory,  b)  We  owe 
to  P.  Martin  the  knowledge  of  five  homilies,  preserved  only  in  Armenian 
and  attributed  to  Gregory.  They  are :  Homilia  in  nativitatem  Christi. 
Sermo  de  incamatione ,  Laus  S.  Dei  genitricis  et  semper  Virginis 
Mariae,  Panegyricus  sermo  in  S.  Dei  genitricem  et  semper  Virginem 
Mariam,  Sermo  panegyricus  in  honorem  S.  Stephani  protomartyris. 
The  last  four  are  certainly  products  of  a  much  later  age.  Loofs 
concedes  the  first  to  be  a  genuine  work  of  Gregory,  moved  by 
numerous  points  of  contact  with  the  work  «To  Theopompus». 
Conybeare  translated  into  English,  also  from  the  Armenian,  a  sixth 
homily,  and  holds  it  to  be  a  genuine  discourse  of  Gregory,  c)  A  multi- 
tude of  loose  fragments,  mostly  spurious  and  insignificant ;  here  and 
there,  however,  a  genuine  phrase  may  lie  hidden  among  them. 

1  Migne,  PG.,  x.    1 137—1 146. 


1/4  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

a)  See  A.  Smith  Lewis,  in  Studia  Sinaitica,  London,  1894,  1.  19—26, 
for  a  Syriac  version  of  the  treatise  «on  the  soul».  It  lacks  only  the  intro- 
duction ;  the  codex  is  of  the  seventh  century.  A  German  version  is  given 
by  Ryssel,  in  Rhein.  Mus.  f.  Philol.,  new  series  (1896),  li.  4—9,  cf.  318—320. 
The  testimony  of  Procopius  is  treated  by  Dräseke,  in  Zeitschr.  für  wissen- 
schaftl.  Theol.  (1896),  xxxix.  166—169,  and  Zur  Gregor  von  Neocaesareas 
Schrift  über  die  Seele,  in  Zeitschr.  für  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1901),  xliv. 
87 — 100.  —  b)  The  five  Armenian  homilies  are  in  Pitra,  Analecta  sacra,  iv. 
134 — 145  156 — 169  (Armenian);  386 — 396  404 — 412  (Latin).  Cf.  Loofs, 
in  Theol.  Literaturzeitung  (1884),  pp.  551—553-  The  Armenian  homily  was 
translated  into  English  by  F.  C.  Conybeare ,  in  The  Expositor  (1896),  i. 
161  — 173.  ,S.  Haidacher ,  Zu  den  Homilien  des  Gregorius  von  Antiochia 
und  des  Gregorius  Thaumaturgus,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  kath.  Theol.  (1901),  xxv. 
367 — 369.  —  c)  For  the  scattered  fragments  of  the  writings  of  Gregory 
see  Ryssel,  Gregorius  Thaumaturgus,  pp.  43 — 59,  and  for  the  Greek  and 
Syriac  fragments,  in  particular,  see  Pitra,  1.  c,  iii.  589 — 595;  iv.  133  386, 
and  Loofs,  1.  c,  550  f. 

5.  SPURIOUS  WORKS.  —  A  number  of  works  have  been  erroneously 
attributed  to  Gregory,  a)  The  Syriac  work  «To  Philagrius  on  con- 
substantiality»  is  simply,  as  was  seen  by  Dräseke,  the  Letter  npoQ 
Eudyptov  povrr/ov  izzp\  fteoTyzoQ,  published  among  the  works  of  St.  Gre- 
gory of  Nazianzus1  and  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa2,  and  probably  not 
written  before  350 — 400.  b)  The  «Sectional  Confession  of  Faith,  j]  xazd 
pipoQ  7ri(jngs,  an  exposition  of  doctrine  concerning  the  Blessed  Trinity 
and  the  Incarnation  of  the  Son,  is  not  a  work  of  Gregory.  Caspari  has 
proved  that  it  was  composed  by  Apollinaris  of  Laodicea  (about  380), 
and  circulated  by  the  Apollinarists  under  the  safe  cover  of  Gregory's 
reputation,  c)  The  «Twelve  Chapters  on  Faith»,  xecpdXaia  rtep\  Tciazecoq 
ocodsxa^.  This  little  work  proposes  to  expound  the  orthodox  faith 
concerning  the  Incarnation.  It  is  anti-Apollinarist  (cc.  10 — 11)  and 
was  probably  not  written  before  the  end  of  the  fourth  century. 
d)  Five  Greek  homilies  —  three  on  the  Annunciation5,  one  on  Epi- 
phany6 and  one  on  the  Feast  of  All  Saints7  —  are  all  spurious. 

a)  The  Syriac  text  of  the  work  «To  Philagrius»  is  found  in  de  Lagarde, 
Anal.  Syr.  pp.  43  —  46,  and  Pitra,  Analecta  sacra,  iv.  100 — 103.  A  German 
version  is  given  in  Ryssel,  Gregorius  Thaumaturgus,  pp.  65 — 70  (cf.  pp.  100 
to  118  135  ff.  147  ft.),  and  a  Latin  version  in  Pitra,  1.  c,  iv.  360 — 363. 
For  the  origin  of  that  work  see  (in  opposition  to  Ryssel ,  in  Jahrb.  für 
protest.  Theol.  [1881],  vii.  565  —  573}  Dräseke,  Gesammelte  Patrist.  Unter- 
suchungen (1889),  pp.  103 — 162.  —  b)  The  «Sectional  Confession  of 
Faith»  may  also  be  found  in  de  Lagarde' s  Edition  of  the  Greek  work  of 
Titus  Bostrensis  «Against  the  Manichaeans»,  Berlin,  1859,  pp.  103  — 113. 
For  a  literal  Syriac  version  see  de  Lagarde,  Analecta  Syriaca,  pp.  31—42, 
and  Pitra,  I.  c. ,  iv.  82 — 93  346 — 356  (Syriac  and  Latin).  Cf.  Caspari, 
Alte   und    neue  Quellen,    pp.    65 — 146.  —  c)  For   fragments    of  a  Syriac 

1  Migne,   PC,  xxxvii.  383.      2  Ib.,  xlvi.  noi  — 1108. 

3  Ib.,  x.  1 103 — 1124.  4  Ib.,  x.  1127— 1136. 

5  Ib.,  x.  1145 — 1178.  6  Ib.,  x.  1 1  77  —  1190. 
7  Ib.,  x.  1197 — 1206. 


§    48-      ST.    METHODIUS    OF    OLYMPUS.  1 75 

version  of  the  Twelve  Chapters  etc.  cf.  de  La  gar  de ,  1.  c. ,  pp.  65 — 67, 
and  Pitra,  1.  c. ,  iv.  95—100  357 — 360.  Concerning  these  «Chapters» 
consult  (against  Dräseke,  1.  c.  pp.  78—102)  Funk,  Kirchengeschichtl.  Ab- 
handlungen und  Untersuchungen  (1899),  ii.  329 — 338;  Fr.  Laudiert,  in 
Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1900),  lxxxii.  395 — 418.  —  d)  The  first  of  the  «Five 
Homilies»  is  extant  also  in  Syriac  (Pitra,\.c,  iv.  122 — 127  377 — 381)  and 
in  Armenian  (ib.,  pp.  145 — 150  396—400),  the  second  also  in  Armenian 
(ib.,  pp.  150 — 156  400 — 404);  there  is  also  (ib.,  pp.  127—133  381 — 386) 
a  Syriac  text  of  the  fourth  homily.  The  arguments  of  Dräseke,  in  Jahrb. 
für  protest.  Theol.  (1884),  x.  657  ff. ,  in  favor  of  the  authorship  of  Apol- 
linaris  of  Laodicea  for  the  first  two  and  the  fourth  homilies  are  not 
conclusive. 

6.  ATHENODORUS.  —  In  his  Sacra  Parallela  St.  John  Damascene  attri- 
butes without  further  identification  three  fragments  of  a  work  irepl  eßpai'fffxoo 
to  a  certain  Athenodorus.  It  may  have  been  written  by  Athenodorus,  the 
brother  of  St.  Gregory  Thaumaturgus.  Cf.  K.  Holl,  in  Texte  und  Unter- 
suchungen, xx,  new  series  (1899),  v.  2,   161. 

7.  FiRMiLiAN  of  caesarea  (Cappadocia).  —  About  the  middle  of  the 
third  century  he  appears  as  one  of  the  most  highly  esteemed  bishops  of 
the  East  (£us.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.  30,  3 — 5).  His  death  is  placed  in  269.  We 
have  from  his  pen  a  long  letter  to  St.  Cyprian  of  Carthage  relative  to  the 
Western  controversy  concerning  the  baptism  of  heretics,  in  a  Latin  version. 
It  is  printed  among  the  letters  of  Cyprian  (no.  75,  ed.  Hartel,  ii.  810  to 
827).  In  this  letter  he  gives  his  unreserved  approval  to  the  position  of 
St.  Cyprian,  declares  invalid  all  baptism  by  heretics,  and  denounces  with 
passionate  invective  the  judgment  of  Pope  Stephen.  J.  Ernst  has  shown, 
in  Zeitschrift  für  kath.  Theol.  (1894),  xviii.  209—259;  (1896),  xx.  364—367, 
that  it  is  impossible  to  defend  the  interpolation-hypothesis  put  forward  by 
O.  Ritschl ,  in  Cyprian  von  Karthago  und  die  Verfassung  der  Kirche, 
Göttingen,  1885,  pp.  126 — 134.  St.  Basil  the  Great  mentions  (De  Spir. 
Sancto,  cc.  29  74)  other  works  (X0701)  of  Firmilian.  Cf.  B.  Bossue,  in  Acta 
SS.  Oct.  (1867),  xii.  470—510. 

§  48.     St.  Methodius  of  Olympus. 

I.  HIS  LIFE.  —  It  is  hidden  in  almost  complete  obscurity.  In  his 
Church  History,  Eusebius  does  not  honor  with  a  mention  this  enemy 
of  Origen.  We  know  only  that  he  was  bishop  of  Olympus  in  Lycia 
and  that  he  died  about  311  a  martyr's  death  in  the  persecution  of 
Maximinus  Daza1.  The  rumor  in  St.  Jerome2  that  he  was  at  first 
bishop  of  Olympus  and  was  then  translated  to  Tyre  (in  Phoenicia), 
also  the  later  tradition  in  Leontius  of  Byzantium  3  that  he  was  bishop 
of  Patara  (in  Lycia),  are  apparently  the  results  of  a  misunderstanding. 

A.  Pankow,  Methodius,  Bischof  von  Olympus,  in  Katholik  (1887),  ii. 
1—28  113— 142  225  —  250  (reprint,  Mainz,  1888).  Concerning  the  episcopal 
see  of  Methodius  see  Th.  Zahn,  in  Zeitschr.  für  Kirchengesch.  (1885  to 
1886),  viii.  15—20.  C.  G.  Lundberg,  Methodius,  biskop  of  Olympos,  en 
Studie  i  de  förnicenska  patristiken,  Stockholm,   1901. 

1  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.   83;  cf.  Socr.,  Hist,  eccl,  vi.   13. 

2  L.  c.  3  De  sectis,  iii.   1. 


I76  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

2.  WRITINGS  OF  METHODIUS.  —  Unlike  St.  Gregory  Thaumat- 
urgus  Methodius  considered  that  literary  labors  were  one  of  the  most 
important  phases  of  his  life-work.  Of  his  writings,  however,  only 
one  has  reached  us  in  its  complete  Greek  text.  Others  have  come 
down,  in  abbreviated  shape,  through  an  Old-Slavonic  version  of  the 
eleventh  century.  Though  diffuse,  he  is  judged  by  St.  Jerome1  to 
be  a  pleasing  and  elegant  writer.  He  is  remarkable  for  formal  beauty 
of  diction  and  delights  in  imitating  Plato,  even  to  the  choice  of 
dialogue  as  the  medium  of  his  thoughts.  His  dogmatic-historical  im- 
portance is  principally  due  to  his  energetic  and  successful  fight  against 
Origenism. 

His  writings,  entire  and  fragmentary,  were  collected  by  Fr.  Combefis, 
Paris,  1644;  they  are  reprinted  in  Gallandi ,  Bibl.  vet.  Patr.  (1767),  iii. 
663 — 832  (cf.  Proleg.,  li. — liv.),  and  in  Migne,  PG.,  xviii.  9 — 408,  also  in 
A.  Jahn,  S.  Methodii  opera  et  S.  Methodius  platonizans,  Halle,  1865. 
A  German  version  of  the  Old-Slavonic  Corpus  Methodianum  and  a  new 
edition  of  most  of  the  Greek  fragments  were  made  by  G.  N.  Bonwetsch, 
Methodius  von  Olympus,  i:  Schriften,  Erlangen  and  Leipzig,  1891.  There 
is  an  English  translation  of  the  works  of  Methodius  by  W.  R.  Clark ,  in 
Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (ed.  Coxe,  1896),  vi.  309 — 402.  See  Preuschen ,  in 
Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Lit.,  i.  468 — 478;  G.  Fritschel,  Methodius 
von  Olympus  und  seine  Philosophie  (Inaug.-Diss.),  Leipzig,  1879.  ■£•  ^z~ 
berger,  Gesch.  der  christl.  Eschatologie  innerhalb  der  vornicänischen  Zeit, 
Freiburg,  1896,  pp.  469 — 490;  G.  N.  Bonwetsch,  Die  Theologie  des  Metho- 
dius von  Olympus  untersucht  (Abhandlungen  der  k.  Gesellschaft  der 
Wissensch.  zu  Göttingen),  Berlin,  1903. 

3.  WORKS  OF  METHODIUS  IN  GREEK.  —  «The  Banquet  or  on 
Virginity»  (aüfimaiov  v)  nepl  äfvaiag)2  is  an  imitation  of  the  «Ban- 
quet» of  Plato.  The  virgin  Gregorium  relates  to  the  author  Eubulius 
(i.  e.  Methodius)  the  story  of  a  banquet  in  the  gardens  of  Arete  at 
which  ten  virgins  glorify  chastity  in  lengthy  discourses  upon  that  sub- 
ject. At  the  end  Thecla,  the  eighth  speaker,  to  whom  Arete  had  given 
the  prize,  intones  a  hymn  to  the  bridegroom  Christ  and  to  His  bride 
the  Church.  The  dialogue  of  Methodius  «on  the  Freedom  of  the 
will»  (itspi  zoo  adzs^ooa'ioü)  is  almost  completely  extant  in  the  original 
Greek.  We  have  already  mentioned  (§  33,  6)  a  very  important  frag- 
ment ;  there  is  extant  also  a  somewhat  defective  version  in  Old-Slavonic. 
In  this  work  an  orthodox  Christian  attacks  the  Gnostic  dualism  and 
determinism  represented  by  two  followers  of  Valentinian.  He  denies 
the  eternity  of  matter  as  a  principle  of  evil ;  the  latter  is  rather  the 
result  of  the  free  will  of  rational  creatures.  The  Greek  text  of  the 
prolix  dialogue,  in  three  books,  on  the  Resurrection,  originally  per- 
haps entitled  WyXaoipibv  tj  irepl  uvaoraascuQ,  has  mostly  perished;  some 
fragments  of  the  original  are  yet  extant.  There  exists,  however,  in 
Old-Slavonic,  a  complete  version,  save  that  the  second  and  third  books 

1   Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.   83.  •  Migne,  PG.,  xviii.   27—220: 


§    48.      ST.    METHODIUS    OF    OLYMPUS.  I  77 

have  suffered  abbreviation.  The  scene  of  the  dialogue  is  at  Patara, 
in  the  house  of  the  physician  Aglaophon;  the  subject  of  the  dis- 
cussion is  the  problem  «whether  after  death  this  body  will  rise  again 
to  incorruptibility»  (I,  I,  8).  Aglaophon  and  Proclus  side  with  Origen 
in  denying  the  identity  of  the  risen  body  with  that  of  our  present 
state,  while  Eubulius  (Methodius)  and  Memianus  defend  the  ecclesia- 
stical teaching.  Methodius1  was  unable  to  finish  this  work  on  the 
lines  of  his  original  plan;  it  merited  and  enjoyed,  nevertheless,  the 
esteem  of  many. 

The  «Banquet»  was  first  edited  by  L.  Allatius,  Rome,  1656.  E.  Card, 
S.  Methodii  Patarensis  convivium  decern  virginum  (These),  Paris,  1880.  On 
the  hymn  at  the  end  of  the  «Banquet»  cf.  Krumbacher,  Gesch.  der  byzant. 
Liter.  (2)  pp.  653  697.  For  the  dialogue  on  «Free  Will»  in  Greek  and 
Slavonic  (also  a  German  version)  cf.  Bonwetsch,  1.  c,  pp.  1 — -62  •  cf  xiv — xxii. 
The  dialogue  on  the  Resurrection  is  found  ib.,  pp.  70  —  283;  cf.  xxiii — xxx. 
349.  Syriac  fragments  of  this  dialogue  are  printed  in  Pitra,  Analecta  sacra, 
iv.   201—205  434—438. 

4.  WRITINGS  PRESERVED  in  OLD-SLAVONIC.  —  In  addition  to  the 
dialogues  on  Free  Will  and  the  Resurrection  there  are  four  other 
tractates  in  the  Old-Slavonic  Corpus  Methodianum:  «On  life  and 
rational  activity»  (De  vita),  an  exhortation  to  contentment  with  the 
present  life  and  to  hope  for  the  future;  «On  the  difference  of  foods 
and  the  young  cow  mentioned  in  Leviticus»  (rather  in  Numb,  xix) 
(De  cibis),  an  allegorico- typical  interpretation  of  the  food-ordinances 
of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  law  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  red  cow 
(see  §  39,  14)  addressed  to  two  women,  Frenope  and  Kilonia;  To 
Sistelius  on  leprosy  (De  lepra),  a  dialogue  between  Eubulius  (Metho- 
dius) and  Sistelius  on  the  spiritual  sense  of  the  legislation  concerning 
leprosy  in  Lev.  xiii;  «On  the  bloodsucker  mentioned  in  Proverbs, 
and  on  the  words  'the  heavens  shew  forth  the  glory  of  God'»  (De 
sanguisuga) ,  an  exposition  of  Prov.  xxx.  15  fr.  (cf.  xxiv.  50  ff.)  and 
Ps.  xviii.  2  (Septuagint).     It  was  addressed    to  a  certain  Eustachius. 

The  Old-Slavonic  text  of  these  tractates  is  given  in  a  German  version 
by  Bonwetsch,  1.  c.  The  Greek  fragments  of  the  work  on  leprosy  printed 
by  Bonwetsch  (pp.  311 — 325)  prove  conclusively  that  the  Slavonic  text  has 
been  abbreviated  and  mutilated.  For  the  contents  of  these  treatises  see 
Abhandlgn.,  AI.  v.  Öttingen  zum  70.  Geburtstag  gewidmet,  Munich,  1898, 
pp.   29—53. 

5.  LOST  WRITINGS.  —  In  the  De  sanguisuga  (10,  4)  Methodius 
announces  to  his  friend  Eustachius  a  work  «On  the  body».  St.  Jerome 
mentions2  four  works  that  no  longer  exist:  Adversum  Porphyriuw 
libri,  an  extensive  refutation  of  the  fifteen  books  written  against  the 
Christians  by  that  Neoplatonist  philosopher s ;  Adver sus  Origenem  de 

1  De  cibis,  c.    I,    I.  2  De  viris  ill.,   c.   83. 

ä  Hier.,  Ep.  48,    13;   70,   3  ;   al. 
Bardenhevver-Shahan,  Patrology.  12 


1^8  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

pythonissa,  or  on  the  Witch  of  Endor,  in  opposition  to  the  homily 
of  Origen  on  the  same  subject  (§  39,  4) ;  In  Genesim  et  In  Canticum 
canticorum  commentarii.  Theodoret  of  Cyrus  mentions1  a  «discourse 
on  the  martyrs»  (7iep\  rcov  papropcov  Aoyoq).  It  is  probable  that  the 
dialogue  entitled  Xenon,  mentioned  by  Socrates2  is  identical  with  the 
work  «On  created  things»  (nep\  rcov  yevr^wv),  fragments  of  which 
have  been  preserved  by  Photius3,  against  the  work  of  Origen  «On 
the  eternity  of  the  world»  defended,  as  it  seems,  by  Xenon.  Some 
fragments  of  the  scholia  of  Methodius  on  the  book  of  Job  are  met 
with  in  the  Catenae. 

For  the  fragments  of  the  work  against  Porphyry  see  Bonwetsch,  1.  c, 
pp.  345 — 348.  To  the  same  work  must  belong  the  pretended  excerpta  tria 
ex  homilia  S.  Methodii  de  cruce  et  passione  Christi,  in  Migne ,  PG. ,  xviii. 
397 — 404.  See  Preuschen,  1.  c,  i.  478,  for  the  fragments  of  the  com- 
mentary on  Genesis  and  the  Canticle  of  canticles.  Two  sentences  of  the 
work  «On  the  Martyrs»  are  printed  in  Bonwetsch,  1.  c,  p.  349.  Cf.  ib., 
pp. -349 — 354,  the  fullest  collection  of  the  scholia  on  Job. 

6.  SPURIOUS  WORKS.  —  The  orations  De  Simeone  et  Anna^,  In 
ramos  palmarum 5  and  In  ascensionem  Do7nini  Nostri  Iesu  Christi, 
are  spurious;  the  last  exists  only  in  Armenian  and  in  a  fragmen- 
tary state. 

The  last  of  these  orations  is  found  in  Pitra ,  Analecta  sacra,  iv. 
207—209  439—441. 

CHAPTER    II. 

THE  WESTERN  WRITERS. 

§  49.     General  Considerations. 

As  early  as  the  third  century  the  ecclesiastical  literature  of  the 
West  exhibits  certain  native  peculiarities.  Its  organ  is  the  Latin,  not 
the  Greek  tongue,  and  a  distinctly  Roman  spirit  dominates  its  contents. 
There  reigns  throughout  its  products  a  sober  and  practical  spirit. 
The  idealism  of  the  Greek  writings,  their  tendency  to  speculation  and 
dialectic  are  not  entirely  foreign  to  this  Latin  Christian  literature; 
yet  its  direct  purpose  is  the  immediately  necessary  or  useful.  Withal, 
it  exhibits  versatility  and  variety  in  a  degree  that  almost  astonishes 
the  reader.  Owing  to  the  circumstances  of  the  times  the  apologetic 
element  is  supreme.  In  the  writings  of  Tertullian  and  in  the  (Greek) 
writings  of  Hippolytus  anti-heretical  polemic  abounds.  Exegesis  is 
represented  chiefly  by  Hippolytus  and  Victorinus  of  Pettau.  Com- 
modianus  leads  the  procession  of  Christian  poets  in  the  Latin  tongue. 
It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  Western  writers  are  few,  and  that  of 
the  small  number  the  majority  comes  from  Northern  Africa. 

1  Dial.   1  ;  opp.  ed.  Schultze,  iv.   55.  2  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.    13. 

3  Bibl.   Cod.   235.  *  Migne,  PG.,  xviii.  347—382. 

5  Ib.,  383-398. 


§    5°-      TERTULL1AN.  1 79 

A.  AFRICAN  WRITERS. 
§  50.    Tertullian. 

1.  HIS  LIFE.  <—  Quintus  Septimius  Florens  Tertullianus  was  born, 
it  is  usually  believed,  about  the  year  160  at  Carthage,  where  his 
father  was  serving  as  a  centurion  (centurio  proconsularis)  in  the  service 
of  the  proconsul  of  Africa1.  He  received  an  excellent  academic 
training  and  probably  entered  upon  the  career  of  an  advocate2. 
There  are  in  the  Pandects  some  excerpts  from  the  writings  of  a  jurist 
Tertullian  (Quaestionum  libri  viii,  De  castrensi  peculio)  whom  many 
historians  are  inclined  to  identify  with  our  ecclesiastical  writer  About 
193,  certainly  before  197,  he  became  a  Christian,  was  ordained  also  a 
priest  according  to  St.  Jerome 3,  and  began  a  long  literary  career  in 
the  service  of  the  new  faith.  About  midway  in  his  life  (ca.  202)  he 
openly  joined  the  sect  of  the  Montanists,  and  began  to  attack  the 
Catholic  Church  with  a  violence  scarcely  inferior  to  that  which  he 
had  manifested  against  heathenism.  Within  the  Montanist  fold  he 
founded  a  special  sect  known  as  Tertullianists  4.  He  is  said  to  have 
lived  to  a  very  advanced  age5. 

C.  E.  Freppel,  Tertullien,  2  voll.,  Paris,  1864;  3.  ed.  1886.  F.  Bäh- 
ringer, Die  Kirche  Christi  und  ihre  Zeugen,  2.  ed.,  iii.  —  iv:  Die  lateinisch- 
afrikanische Kirche.  Tertullianus,  Cyprianus  (Stuttgart,  1864);  2.  ed.  1873. 
A.  Hauck,  Tertullians  Leben  und  Schriften,  Erlangen,  1877.  E.  Nöldechen, 
Tertullian,  Gotha,  1890.  Cf.  Nöldechen,  Die  Abfassungszeit  der  Schriften 
Tertullians,  Leipzig,  1888  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  v.  2).  In  these  two 
books  Nöldechen  collected  the  results  of  investigations  previously  published 
in  several  theological  and  historical  reviews.  —  Schanz,  Geschichte  der 
röm.  Literatur  (1896),  iii.  240 — 302.  P.  Monceaux,  Histoire  litteraire  de 
l'Afrique  chretienne.  I:  Tertullien,  Paris,  1901.  H.  Kellner  and  G.  Esser, 
in  Kirchenlexikon,  2.  ed,,  xi.  1389 — 1426.  —  On  the  Jurist  Tertullian  cf. 
Schanz,  1.  c,  iii.  182. 

2.  HIS  LITERARY  LABORS.  —  Tertullian  is  the  most  prolific  of 
all  the  Latin  writers;  he  is  also  the  most  original  and  personal. 
Ebert  says  well  that  perhaps  no  author  has  ever  more  fully  justified 
than  Tertullian  the  phrase  of  BufTon  that  the  style  is  the  man;  for 
there  never  was  a  man  that  spoke  more  from  his  heart.  He  lives 
habitually  in  an  atmosphere  of  conflict  with  others  and  with  himself. 
He  is  quite  conscious  of  this  weakness.  «Unhappy  me!»  he  cries 
out  on  one  occasion,  «always  burning  with  the  fever  of  im- 
patience» —  miser rimus  ego  semper  uror  caloribus  impatientiaeQ. 
All  his  extant  writings,  it  may  be  said,  are  polemical.  They  fall 
easily  into    three    groups:    apologetic,    in   defence    of  Christianity   or 

1  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.   53.  2  Eus..  Hist,  eccl.,  ii.   2,  4. 

3  De  viris  ill.,   c.   53.  *  Aug.,  De  haer.,  c.  86. 

5  Hier.,  1.  c. :  fertur  vixisse  usque  ad  decrepitam  aetatem. 

6  De  pat.  c.    1. 

12  * 


l80  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

against  heathenism  and  Judaism;  dogmatico-polemic,  in  refutation 
of  heresy  in  general  and  of  certain  heretics;  practico-ascetical,  dealing 
with  various  questions  of  Christian  morality  and  discipline.  Even  in 
these  writings  the  polemical  element,  or  a  highly  personal  note,  is 
always  present,  whether  he  writes  as  a  Catholic  carried  away  with 
holy  zeal  yet  harshly  rigoristic,  or  as  a  Montanist  overflowing  with 
passionate  rage  against  the  pretended  laxity  of  the  Catholic  Church. 
Tertullian  is  ever  a  powerful  adversary,  a  man  of  burning  eloquence, 
biting  satire,  compact  and  forcible  logic.  As  a  rule  he  over-shoots 
the  mark,  and  fails  to  attain  his  immediate  purpose1.  As  a  writer 
he  is  without  moderation,  contemptuous  of  all  compromise,  proving 
frequently  more  than  is  needed;  the  reader  is  carried  away  rather 
than  persuaded  by  his  argument;  he  is  hushed  by  the  fine  display 
of  wit,  but  remains  unconvinced  and  antagonistic. 

In  expression  Tertullian  is  concise  and  bold,  solid  and  rugged, 
involved  and  obscure.  He  has  no  sense  for  beauty  of  form;  he 
deliberately  scoffs  at  the  refined  diction  of  a  Minucius  Felix  (§  24). 
He  seizes  with  pleasure  on  popular  expressions;  in  a  moment  of 
embarrassment  he  is  daringly  creative  and  suddenly  enriches  the 
vocabulary  of  the  Latin  tongue.  The  theology  of  the  Western 
Christians  is  indebted  to  him  for  many  of  its  technical  terms. 

The  manuscript  tradition  of  the  writings  of  Tertullian  is  very  im- 
perfect. Only  the  Apologeticum  has  come  down  in  numerous  codices, 
some  of  them  quite  ancient ;  a  whole  series  of  his  other  writings  has 
been  preserved  only  through  the  Codex  Agobardinus  (Parisiensis)  of  the 
ninth  century.  The  works  De  baptismo,  De  ieiunio  and  De  pudicitia 
are  now  without  any  manuscript  evidence  or  guarantee.  His  writings, 
as  far  as  we  possess  them,  must  have  appeared  between  195  and  218. 
For  each  of  them  the  actual  date  is  doubtful  or  much  disputed; 
there  are  no  certain  points  of  comparison.  However,  it  is  usually 
possible  to  say  whether  a  given  work  belongs  to  his  Catholic  or  his 
Montanist  period. 

For  the  manuscripts  of  the  writings  of  Tertullian  see  Freuschen ,  in 
Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  i.  675-677,  and  E.  Kroymann, 
Die  Tertullian-Überlieferung  in  Italien,  Wien,  1898  (Sitzungsberichte  der 
phil.-histor.  Kl.  der  kgl.  Akad.  der  Wissensch.  zu  Wien,  cxxxviii.  — 
Complete  editions  of  his  works  were  published  by  B.  Rhenanus,  Basle, 
1521,  and  often  since  (cf.  A.  Horawitz,  in  the  above-mentioned  Sitzungs- 
berichten, 1872,  lxxi.  662—674);  J.  Pamelius,  Antwerp.,  1579;  N.  Rigaltius, 
Paris,  1634;  j.  S.  Semler,  Halle,  1769— 1776,  6  voll;  Migne,  PL,  Paris, 
1844,  i.— ii. ;  Fr.  Öhler,  Leipzig,  185 1  — 1854,  3  voll,  and  also  (editio 
minor),  Leipzig,  1854  (cf.  Klussmann ,  in  Zeitschr.  für  wissensch.  Theol. 
[i860],  iii.  82  —  100,  363—393,  and  Öhler,  ib.  [1861],  iv.  204—211).  An 
edition  corresponding  to  modern  scientific  needs  and  conditions  was  under- 
taken by  A.  Reiff erscheid,  and  continued  after  his  death  (1887)  by  G.  Wis- 

1  De  virg.  vel.,  c.    1. 


§    5°-      TERTULLIAN.  l8l 

soma:  Pars  I,  Vienna,  1890  (Corpus  scriptorum  eccl.  Lat.,  xx.).  Cf.  W- 
von  Hartel ,  Patristische  Studien,  Wien,  1890,  i.— iv.  (reprint  from  the 
just-mentioned  Wiener  Sitzungsberichten,  cxx. — cxxi.).  For  other  contri- 
butions to  the  textual  criticism  of  Tertullian  cf.  M.  Klussmann,  Curarum 
Tertullianearum  partic.  i. — iii.,  Halle,  1881,  Gotha,  1887;  Excerpta  Ter- 
tullianea  in  Isidori  Hispalensis  Etymologiis  (Progr.),  Hamburg,  1892.  J.  van 
der  Vliet ,  Studia  ecclesiastica :  Tertullianus.  I.  Critica  et  interpretatoria, 
Leiden,  1891.  Aem.  Kroymann,  Quaestiones  Tertullianeae  criticae,  Inns- 
bruck, 1894;  H  Gomperz,  Tertullian ea,  Vienna,  1895;  Kroymann,  Kritische 
Vorarbeiten  für  den  dritten  und  vierten  Band  der  neuen  Tertullian- Ausgabe, 
Vienna,  1900  (Sitzungsberichte,  clxiii.).  —  Fr.  A.  von  Besnard,  Tertullian. 
Sämtliche  Schriften  übersetzt  und  bearbeitet,  2  voll.,  Augsburg,  1837 — 1838. 
H.  Kellner,  Tertullians  ausgewählte  Schriften  übersetzt,  2  voll.,  Kempten 
1870 — 187 1  (Bibl.  der  Kirchenväter).  Id. ,  Tertullians  sämtliche  Schriften 
aus  dem  Lateinischen  übersetzt,  2  voll.,  Cologne,  1882.  —  For  an  English 
translation  of  the  writings  of  Tertullian  see  Holmes  and  Thidnall,  in  Ante- 
Nicene  Fathers  (ed.  Coxe),  iii.   17 — 697,  707 — 717;  iv.  3  — 121. 

On  the  style  and  diction  of  Tertullian  the  reader  may  consult  G.  R. 
Hauschild ,  Die  Grundsätze  und  Mittel  der  Wortbildung  bei  Tertullian 
(Progr.),  I,  Leipzig,  1876;  II,  Frankfurt,  1881.  J.  P.  Condamin ,  De  Q. 
S.  Fl.  Tertulliano  vexatae  religionis  patrono  et  praecipuo,  apud  Latinos, 
christianae  linguae  artifice  (These),  Bar-le-duc,  1877.  H.  Hoppe,  De  ser- 
mone  Tertullianeo  quaestiones  selectae  (Dissert,  inaug.),  Marburg,  1897. 
E.  Norden,  Die  antike  Kunstprosa,  Leipzig,  1898,  ii.  606 — 615.  H  Hoppe, 
Syntax  und  Stil  des  Tertullian,  Leipzig,  1903.  See  also  for  the  illustration 
of  the  text  C.  Cavedoni ,  Luoghi  notevoli  di  Tertulliano  dichiarati  coi  ris- 
contri  dei  monumenti  antichi,  in  Archivio  dell'  Ecclesiastico  (1864),  ii.  409 
to  431.  H.  Kellner,  Organischer  Zusammenhang  und  Chronologie  der 
Schriften  Tertullians,  in  «Katholik»  (1879),  n-  5^i — 589;  Id.,  Chronologiae 
Tertullianeae  supplementa  (Progr.),  Bonn,  1890.  G.  N.  Bonwetsch ,  Die 
Schriften  Tertullians  nach  der  Zeit  ihrer  Abfassung  untersucht,  Bonn,  1878. 
A.  Harnack,  Zur  Chronologie  der  Schriften  Tertullians,  in  Zeitschr.  für 
Kirchengesch.  (1877  — 1878),  ii.  572 — 583.  E.  Nöldechen,  Die  Abfassungszeit 
der  Schriften  Tertullians,  Leipzig,  1888  (see  above),  jf.  Schmidt,  Ein  Bei- 
trag zur  Chronologie  der  Schriften  Tertullians  und  der  Prokonsuln  von 
Afrika,  in  Rhein.  Museum  für  Philol. ,  new  series  (1891),  xlvi.  77 — 98. 
y.  P.  Knaake,  Die  Predigten  des  Tertullian  und  Cyprian,  in  Theol.  Studien 
und  Kritiken  (1903),  lxxvi.  606 — 639.  —  Works  on  the  doctrine  of  Ter- 
tullian :  J.  A.  W.  Neander,  Antignostikus.  Geist  des  Tertullianus  und  Ein- 
leitung in  dessen  Schriften,  Berlin,  1825;  2.  ed.  1849.  C.  L.  Leimbach, 
Beiträge  zur  Abendmahlslehre  Tertullians,  Gotha,  1874.  G.  Caucanas, 
Tertullien  et  le  montanisme,  Geneve,  1876.  G.  R.  Hauschild,  Die  rationale 
Psychologie  und  Erkenntnistheorie  Tertullians,  Leipzig,  1880.  G.  Ludwig, 
Tertullians  Ethik  in  durchaus  objektiver  Darstellung  (Inaug.  -  Diss.), 
Leipzig,  1885.  G.  Esser,  Die  Seelenlehre  Tertullians,  Paderborn,  1893. 
K.  H.  Wirth,  Der  «Verdienst»-BegrirT  in  der  christl.  Kirche.  I:  Der  «Ver- 
dienst»-BegrirT  bei  Tertullian,  Leipzig,  1893.  J.  Stier,  Die  Gottes-  und 
Logoslehre  Tertullians,  Göttingen,  1889.  G.  Schwelowsky ,  Der  Apologet 
Tertullian  in  seinem  Verhältnis  zu  der  griechisch-römischen  Philosophie, 
Leipzig,  1901.  C.  Guignebert,  Tertullien.  Etude  sur  ses  sentiments  ä  l'egard 
de  l'empire  et  de  la  societe  civile,  Paris,  1901.  —  J.  F.  Bethune- Baker, 
Tertullian's  use  of  Substantia,  Natura,  and  Persona,  in  Journal  of  Theol. 
Studies  (1902— 1903),  iv.  440—442.  J.  Lebla?ic,  Le  materialisme  de  Ter- 
tullien, in  Annales  de  pRilos.  chretienne,  Juillet,  1903,  np.  415—423. 
H  Rönsch,   Das   Neue   Testament  Tertullians   aus   dessen  Schriften   mög- 


1 82  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

liehst  vollständig  rekonstruiert,  Leipzig,  187 1.  J.  Kolberg ,  Verfassung, 
Kultus  und  Disziplin  der  christlichen  Kirche  nach  den  Schriften  Tertullians, 
Braunsberg,  1886.  A.  Harnack,  Tertullian  in  der  Literatur  der  alten  Kirche 
(Sitzungsberichte  der  kgl.  preußischen  Akad.  der  Wissensch.  zu  Berlin,  1895, 
pp.  545 — 579).  A.  J.  Mason,  Tertullian  and  Purgatory,  in  Journal  of  Theol. 
Studies  (1902),  iii.  598 — 601.  J.  Tixeront ,  Histoire  des  dogmes.  I:  La 
Theologie  ante-Niceenne,  Paris,  1904.  A.  a? Ales ,  La  Theologie  de  Ter- 
tullien,  Paris,  1905.  %  Turmel,  Tertullien,  in  La  Pensee  chretienne,  Textes 
et  etudes,  Paris,  1905,  xlviii.  398. 

3.  APOLOGETIC  WRITINGS.  —  Foremost  among  these  is  the  Apo- 
logeticum  or  Apologeticus  (the  most  ancient  text-witnesses  do  not  agree), 
a  defence  of  Christianity,  composed  in  the  summer  or  autumn  of  197, 
and  addressed  to  the  provincial  governors  of  the  Roman  Empire.  It 
opens  with  a  request,  couched  in  words  of  great  beauty  and  force, 
that  the  truth,  being  forbidden  to  defend  itself  publicly,  may  reach 
the  ears  of  the  rulers  at  least  by  the  hidden  paths  of  dumb  letters. 
The  Apology  itself  falls  into  two  parts,  in  so  far  as  it  treats  first  of 
the  «secret»  and  then  of  the  «public»  crimes  of  the  Christians  {occulta 
facinora,  c.  6;  manifestiora,  cc.  6  9).  He  makes  short  work  of  the 
first  class  of  accusations:  infanticide,  Thyestsean  banquets,  incest 
(cc.  7 — 9);  all  the  more  lengthy  and  detailed  is  his  treatment 
(cc.  10—27  28 — 45)  of  the  «public»  crimes:  contempt  of  the  religion 
of  the  fatherland  (intentatio  laesae  divinitatis,  c.  27),  and  the  still 
more  reprehensible  crime  of  high  treason  (titulus  laesae  augustioris 
maiestatis,  c.  28).  He  closes  with  an  assertion  of  the  absolute 
superiority  of  Christianity ;  it  is  a  revealed  religion  and  is  beyond  the 
rivalry  of  all  human  philosophy  (cc.  46 — 50).  The  special  characteristic 
of  the  work  lies  in  the  boldness  with  which  the  politico-juridical 
accusations  against  the  Christians  are  brought  to  the  front.  Its  relations 
to  the  Octavius  of  Minucius  Felix  have  already  been  indicated  (§  24,  2). 
An  ancient  Greek  version  has  perished ;  we  know  of  it  only  through 
citations  in  Eusebius1.  A  second  Apology,  Ad  nationes  libri  ii,  is 
partly  illegible  in  the  only  manuscript  known  to  us,  the  Codex  Ago- 
bardinus.  In  the  first  book  he  demonstrates  that  the  accusations  launched 
against  the  Christians  are  really  true  of  the  heathens;  in  the  second 
book  he  draws  on  V  a  r  r  o '  s  Rerum  divinarum  libri  xvi  in  order 
to  cover  with  ridicule  the  heathen  belief  in  the  gods.  The  tone  of  this 
work  is  more  animated  and  acrimonious,  than  that  of  the  Apologeticum. 
Its  process  of  reasoning  is  also  less  orderly  and  the  diction  less  chaste. 
It  was  also  written  in  197,  a  little  while  before  the  Apologeticum,  the 
appearance  of  which  it  frequently  announces  (i.  3  7  10;  al.).  The  golden 
booklet  De  testimonio  animae  is  an  appendix  to  the  Apologeticum, 
destined  to  illustrate  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  testimonium  animae 
naturaliter  christianae  (Apol.  c.    17).     Even  the  heathen,  by  his  in- 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  ii.  2,  4 — 6;   al. 


§    5°-      TERTULLIAN.  1 83 

voluntary  exclamations  and  his  ordinary  modes  of  speech,  gives  ex- 
pression to  a  natural  religious  knowledge  of  God,  to  belief  in  His 
existence  and  unity,  the  reality  of  malevolent  spirits,  and  a  life  beyond 
the  grave.  All  this  corresponds  admirably  with  the  teachings  of  the 
Christians.  In  his  treatment  of  these  ideas  Tertullian  reveals  the 
touch  and  temper  of  the  poet.  The  brief  letter  Ad  Scapulam,  written 
probably  some  time  after  Aug.  14.,  212,  was  intended  as  an  ad- 
monition to  Scapula,  proconsul  of  Africa,  an  especially  fierce  per- 
secutor of  the  Christians.  Tertullian  reminds  him  of  the  divine 
judgments  that  had  fallen  upon  the  persecutors  of  former  days.  The 
Adver sus  Iudaeos,  called  forth,  as  the  opening  words  show,  by  a 
discussion  between  a  Christian  and  a  Jewish  proselyte,  was  written 
to  prove  that  the  grace  of  God,  voluntarily  rejected  by  Israel,  has 
been  offered  to  the  Gentiles.  In  place  of  the  ancient  law  of  retri- 
bution there  has  come  the  new  law  of  love.  In  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament  were  fulfilled.  The  last  chapters, 
9 — 14,  which  deal  with  the  Messianic  office  of  Jesus,  are  clearly  an 
unskilful  excerpt  from  the  third  book  of  Tertullian's  «Against  Marcion». 
Some  passages,  nevertheless,  not  found  in  the  latter  work  seem  to 
indicate  by  their  style  and  vocabulary  the  personality  of  Tertullian. 
It  is  probably  true  that  Tertullian  left  the  work  incomplete;  a  later 
and  unskilful  hand  has  compiled  the  last  chapters.  Chapters  1 — 8 
are  surely  the  work  of  Tertullian ;  both  internal  evidence  and  citations 
by  St.  Jerome  make  it  certain1. 

The  best  of  the  separate  editions  of -the  Apologeticum  is  that  of 
S.  Haver kamp ,  Ley  den,  17 18.  Later  editions  or  reprints  are  those  by 
J.  Kayser,  Paderborn,  1865;  IT.  Hurler,  Innsbruck,  1872  (Ss.  Patr.  opusc. 
sei.,  xix);  F.  Leonard,  Namur,  1881 ;  T.  H.  Bindley,  London,  1889.  Vizzini, 
Bibliotheca  Ss.  Patrum,  Rome,  1902 — 1903,  series  iii,  voll,  i  ii  iii  iv  v, 
has  edited  the  Apologeticum  (according  to  Havercamp's  text),  De  prae- 
scriptione  haereticorum,  De  testimonio  animae,  De  baptismo,  De  poeni- 
tentia,  De  oratione,  De  pudicitia,  Adversus  Marcionem,  Adversus  Valenti- 
nianos.  P.  de  Lagarde  published  a  new  recension  of  the  Apologeticum,  in  Ab- 
handlungen der  k.  Gesellsch.  d.  Wissensch.  zu  Göttingen,  1891,  xxxvii.  73  fr. 
C.  Callevaert,  Le  codex  Fuldensis,  le  meilleur  manuscrit  de  l'Apologeticum 
de  Tertullien,  in  Revue  d'hist.  et  de  liter,  .religieuses  (1902),  vii.  322—353. 
For  the  ancient  Greek  version  see  Harnack,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen 
(1892),  viii.  4,  1 — 36.  The  relation  between  the  Apologeticum  and  the  Ad 
nationes  is  treated  by  v.  Hartel ,  Patristische  Studien,  ii.  The  letter  Ad 
Scapulam,  with  the  De  praescriptione  and  the  Ad  martyres,  were  edited  anew 
by  T.  H.  Bindley,  Oxford,  1894.  For  the  Adversus  Iudaeos  see  P.  Corssen, 
Die  Altercatio  Simonis  Iudaei  etTheophili  Christiani,  Berlin,  1890,  pp.  2 — 9; 
E.  Nöldeche?i,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  (1894),  xii.  2;  J.  M.  Ein- 
siedler, De  Tertulliani  adv.  Iudaeos  libro  (Dissert.  Inaug.),  Vienna,  1897. 
Noldechen  maintains  the  genuineness  and  unity  of  the  work ;  Einsiedler,  on 
the  contrary,  holds  that  with  a  few  exceptions  the  second  part  is  owing 
to  a  later  compiler. 

1  Comm.  in  Dan.  ad  ix.   24  ff. 


I84  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

4.  DOGMATICOPOLEMICAL  WORKS.  —  Apart  from  its  local  and 
immediate  purpose,  the  defence  of  Catholic  doctrine  in  general,  or 
the  refutation  of  heresy  as  such,  was  the  theme  of  Tertullian  in  his 
imperishable  work  De  praescriptione  haereticorum,  a  title  vouched  for 
by  the  oldest  and  best  manuscripts.  Praescriptio  is  a  form  of  de- 
fence in  civil  procedure  based  on  length  of  possession;  its  result  is 
to  exclude  the  accuser  at  the  very  opening  of  the  process.  It  is 
admitted  by  all  that  the  Lord  confided  to  the  Apostles  the  preaching 
of  His  doctrine;  therefore  only  the  churches  founded  by  them,  and 
not  heretics,  can  be  admitted  to  testify  in  regard  to  Christian  truth. 
This  is  a  consequence  of  the  principalitas  veritatis  et  posteritas 
mendacitatis  (c.  31).  Catholic  doctrine  is  that  which  existed  from 
the  beginning,  and  is  therefore  the  true  one;  every  heresy  is  an 
innovation  and  as  such  necessarily  false.  The  appeal  of  heretics  to 
the  Holy  Scriptures  is  clearly  unjustifiable,  for  they  are  the  property 
of  the  Catholic  Church,  which  received  them  from  the  Apostles. 
Previous  to  his  discussion  and  demonstration  of  the  thesis  of  pre- 
scription by  possession  (cc.  15 — 40),  Tertullian  treats  at  some  length 
of  the  origin  and  nature  of  heresy  (cc.  1  — 14);  in  conclusion  he  calls 
attention  to  the  lack  of  moral  gravity  and  of  religious  earnestness  visible 
among  heretics;  they  manifest  themselves  thereby  as  followers  of 
falsehood  (cc.  41—44).  This  work  stands  as  a  classic  defence  of  the 
Catholic  principle  of  authority  and  tradition.  It  is  a  development  of 
the  theory  of  St.  Irenaeus1,  set  forth  with  the  skill  of  a  jurist. 
Tertullian  wrote  it  while  still  a  Catholic,  probably  before  any  of  his 
writings  against  individual  heretics  (cf.  c.  44). 

Among  the  latter  works  the  Adverstis  Marcionem  libri  v  is  easily 
pre-eminent;  he  revised  it  twice  before  it  reached  its  present  form 
(i.  1).  The  first  book  in  its  third  (and  surviving)  form  was  edited 
in  207,  «in  the  fifteenth  year  of  the  emperor  Severus»  (i.  15);  it  is 
not  possible  to  determine  more  closely  at  what  intervals  the  other 
four  books  followed.  In  the  first  two  he  refutes  Marcion's  doctrine  of 
a  good  God  and  a  Creator-God,  the  latter  at  once  just  and  wicked. 
There  cannot  be  a  good  God  other  than  the  Creator  of  the  world 
(book  i);  the  Creator  is  rather  the  one  true  God,  to  whom  belong 
all  the  attributes  with  which  the  Marcionites  clothe  their  good  God 
(book  ii).  In  the  third  book  he  proves  that  the  historical  Christ  is 
the  Messias  foretold  in  the  Old  Testament.  The  two  remaining  books 
are  a  critique  of  the  New  Testament  according  to  Marcion;  in  the 
fourth  he  discusses  the  «evangelium»,  in  the  fifth  the  «apostolicum» 
(§25,  7).  Adver sus  Hermogenem  was  probably  written  after  De  prae- 
scriptione ;  in  it  he  attacks  with  philosophical  and  scriptural  weapons 
the  dualism  of  the  Gnostics.    It  was  called  forth  by  the  teaching  of 

7  Adv.  haer.,  iii. ;   cf.  §  34,   3. 


§    5°-      TERTULLIAN.  1 85 

the  painter  Hermogenes  (at  Carthage?)  that  God  had  not  created  the 
world.  He  only  fashioned  it  out  of  matter  that  had  existed  from  all 
eternity.  Hermogenes  claimed  also  for  his  teaching  the  authority  of 
Scripture.  Tertullian  is  already  a  Montanist  in  the  Adversus  Valen- 
tinianos  (c.  5).  Its  composition  is  posterior  (c.  16)  to  that  of  the  work 
against  Hermogenes ;  in  it  he  is  content  to  describe  the  doctrine  of  his 
adversaries  according  to  St.  Irenseus  1  and  to  cover  them  with  ridicule. 
We  do  not  know  that  he  ever  published  the  scientific  criticism  of  the 
Valentinian  Gnosis  promised  in  this  work  (cc.  3  6).  He  composed  the 
De  baptismo  while  still  a  Catholic,  in  order  to  solve  the  doubts  raised 
among  the  Christians  of  Carthage  by  the  rationalistic  objections  that 
a  certain  Quintilla  (the  proper  reading,  c.  1)  was  urging  against  the 
ecclesiastical  teaching  concerning  baptism.  He  declared  all  heretical 
baptism  invalid  (c.  15).  The  Scorpiace,  or  antidote  against  the  bites 
of  the  scorpion,  is  a  booklet  against  the  Gnostics  whom  he  compares 
to  scorpions.  Its  purpose  is  to  show  the  moral  worth  and  meritorious 
nature  of  martyrdom ;  it  was  very  probably  published  after  the  second 
book  against  Marcion  (c.  5).  The  De  car?ie  Christi  is  a  polemical 
work  against  the  Gnostic  Docetism  of  Marcion,  Apelles,  Valentinus, 
and  Alexander ;  he  proves  that  the  body  of  Christ  was  a  real  human 
body,  taken  from  the  virginal  body  of  Mary,  but  not  by  the  way  of 
human  procreation.  It  is  here  that  we  meet  (c.  9)  his  eccentric 
notion,  otherwise  in  keeping  with  his  extreme  realism,  that  the  appear- 
ance of  Christ  was  unseemly.  He  cites  in  this  work  among  other 
Christian  sources  his  own  fourth  book  against  Marcion  (c.  7).  The 
large  work  De  resurrectione  carnis,  also  against  the  Gnostics,  seems 
(c.  2)  to  have  been  published  immediately  after  the  De  came  Christi. 
It  reviews  (cc.  3 — 17)  the  arguments  furnished  by  reason  in  favor  of 
the  resurrection  of  the  body,  illustrates  at  length  the  pertinent  texts 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  (cc.  18 — 55),  and  discusses  the 
nature  and  qualities  of  the  risen  body  fee.  56—63).  In  the  closing 
chapters  he  lays  especial  stress  on  the  substantial  identity  of  the 
risen  with  the  actual  body.  Adversus  Praxeam,  probably  the  last 
of  his  anti-heretical  writings,  certainly  written  long  after  his  definitive 
exit  from  the  Church,  defends  the  ecclesiastical  teaching  concerning 
the  Trinity  against  Patripassian  monarchianism.  In  his  defence  of 
the  personal  distinction  between  the  Father  and  the  Son  he  does 
not,  apparently,  avoid  a  certain  subordinationism.  Nevertheless  in 
many  very  clear  expressions  and  turns  of  thought  he  almost  forestalls 
the  Nicene  creed. 

New  editions,  or  reprints  of  old  editions,  of  the  De  praescriptione  have 
been  made  by  H.  Hurter,  Innsbruck,  1870  1880  (SS.  Patr.  opusc.  sei.  ix); 
E.  Preuschen,  Freiburg,  1892  (Sammlung  ausgewählter  kirchen-  und  dogmen- 
geschichtl.  Quellenschriften,    iii);    T.  H.  Bindley,    Oxford,   1894.     Vizzini's 

1  Adv.  haer.,  i. 


1 86  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

edition  is  mentioned  on  p.  183.  L.  Lehanneur ,  Le  traite  de  Tertullien 
contre  les  Valentiniens,  Caen,  1886.  De  baptismo  is  also  in  Hurtcr,  1.  c„ 
Innsbruck,  1869,  vii.  R.  A.  Lipsius ,  Über  Tertullians  Schrift  wider 
Praxeas,  in  Jahrb.  für  deutsche  Theol.  (1868),  xiii.  701 — 724.  —  Th.  Scher- 
mann ,  Lateinische  Parallelen  zu  Didimus  (in  De  baptismo),  in  Rom. 
Quartalschr.  für  christl.  Altertumskunde  und  für  Kirchengesch.  (1902),  xvi. 
232 — 242.  E.  Heintzel,  Hermogenes,  der  Hauptvertreter  des  philosophi- 
schen Dualismus  in  der  alten  Kirche,  Berlin,  1902.  E.  von  der  Goltz,  Die 
Traktate  des  Tertullian  und  Cyprian  über  das  Gebet,  in  «Das  Gebet  in 
der  ältesten  Christenheit»,  Leipzig,   1901,  pp.  279 — 287. 

5.  PRACTICO-ASCETICAL  WRITINGS.  —  The  spirited  treatise  De 
patientia  especially  interests  all  readers  of  Tertullian,  because  in  a 
sense  addressed  to  its  own  impatient  author.  He  was  to  find  a 
certain  consolation  in  speaking  of  the  beauty  and  sublimity  of  patience, 
even  as  the  sick  delight  in  speaking  of  the  value  of  health  (c.  1). 
The  book  surely  belongs  to  the  Catholic  period  of  his  life,  as  does 
also  De  oratione  destined  for  the  Catechumens.  In  the  latter  he 
undertakes  to  explain  the  Lord's  Prayer  (cc.  2—9),  gives  various  in- 
structions on  the  value  of  prayer  in  general  (cc.  10 — 28)  and  ends 
with  a  moving  description  of  its  power  and  efficacy  (c.  29).  In  De 
paenitentia  he  treats  of  penance  at  length,  of  the  penitential  temper, 
the  practice  of  penance,  and  of  two  kinds  of  penance  peculiar  to  the 
early  Church:  that  which  an  adult  was  expected  to  perform  before 
baptism  (cc.  4 — 6)  and  the  so-called  canonical  penance  that  the 
baptised  Christian  had  to  undergo  after  the  commission  of  such  grave 
sins  as  homicide,  idolatry  and  sins  of  the  flesh,  before  being  reconciled 
with  the  Church  (cc.  7 — 12).  In  his  Montanist  work  De  pudicitia  he 
directly  contradicts  the  teaching  of  this  Catholic  work  on  penance. 
His  change  of  attitude  was  occasioned  by  the  decree  of  Pope  Callixtus 
(217 — 222)  that  henceforth  sins  of  adultery  and  fornication  would  be 
remitted  those  who  had  fulfilled  the  canonical  penance  (c.  1).  In 
this  work  Tertullian  laments  with  bitterness  the  decadence  of  virtue 
and  righteousness,  attacks  violently  the  «psychici»,  a  name  given  to 
the  Catholics  in  opposition  to  the  «pneumatici»  or  Montanists,  and 
undertakes  to  show  that  the  Church  cannot  remit  such  grave  sins  as 
adultery  and  fornication  (c.  4).  The  beautiful  letter  Ad  martyres, 
written  certainly  (c.  6)  in  197,  contains  words  of  consolation  and 
exhortation  to  a  number  of  Christians  who  had  been  suffering  a  long 
imprisonment  for  their  faith,  and  were  in  daily  expectation  of  the 
final  summons.  Among  his  writings  are  several  on  Christian  marriage, 
especially  on  second  marriages.  The  earliest  and  most  attractive  is 
his  work  Ad  uxor  em  in  two  books.  In  it  he  advises  his  wife  Esther 
not  to  remarry  after  his  death,  or  else  to  marry  no  one  but  a  Christian. 
As  a  Montanist,  however,  he  rejects  second  marriage  unconditionally. 
In  the  tractate  De  exhortatione  castitatis  addressed  to  a  widowed 
friend,  he  declares  that  a  second  marriage  is  simply  fornication  (non 


§    5°-      TERTULLIAN.  1 87 

aliud  dicendum  erit  secundum  matrimonium  quam  species  stupri,  c.  9). 
In  De  monogamia,  written  somewhat  later,  about  217,  he  maintains 
the  same  opinion  with  even  less  reserve  {ununt  matrimonium  novimus 
sicut  unum  Deum,  c.  1).  The  De  spectaculis  is  devoted  to  an  ex- 
haustive study  of  a  question  that  had  then  become  very  serious: 
Can  Christians  frequent  the  public  games  and  theatres  (spectacula)  of 
the  heathens?  His  answer  is  that  all  such  plays  are  intimately  cor- 
related with  the  idolatrous  worship  of  the  times  (cc.  4—13)  and 
necessarily  constitute  an  immediate  peril  for  Christian  morality  by 
reason  of  the  savage  passions  they  arouse  (cc.  14 — 30).  He  pours 
out  against  heathenism  all  the  hatred  of  his  soul  in  a  flaming  de- 
scription of  the  greatest  spectacle  the  world  shall  ever  behold,  the 
Second  Coming  of  the  Lord  or  the  Last  Judgment  (c.  30).  In  De 
idololatria,  posterior  (c.  13)  to  De  spectaculis,  and  written  very  pro- 
bably while  he  was  still  a  Catholic,  he  illustrates  in  every  sense  the 
duty  of  Christians  to  avoid  idolatry;  the  fine  arts  and  public  life  are 
entirely  permeated  with  it  and  cannot  therefore  offer  any  opening 
for  Christian  activity.  Quite  similar  are  the  contents  of  De  corona, 
written  probably  during  August  or  September  of  211,  apropos  of 
the  act  of  a  Christian  soldier  who  had  refused  to  put  on  a  crown  of 
flowers,  in  keeping  with  a  heathen  custom.  As  the  wearing  of  such 
a  crown  was  among  the  specific  rites  of  idolatry  (c.  7)  it  followed 
that  a  Christian  soldier  could  not,  on  principle,  accept  military  service 
(c.  1 1).  In  the  two  books  De  cultu  feminarum,  written  while  he  was 
still  a  Catholic,  he  thunders  against  female  vanity  in  the  matter  of 
dress  and  ornament.  It  is  only  in  the  Codex  Agobardinus  that  the 
first  book  bears  the  title  De  culiu  feminarum ;  in  all  other  manuscripts 
it  is  known  as  De  habitu  muliebri;  moreover,  it  has  reached  us  in 
a  very  imperfect  state.  The  second  book  pursues  the  same  theme, 
and  is  composed  in  a  calmer  and  milder  spirit.  In  the  De  oratione 
(cc.  21  22)  he  had  maintained  that  Christian  virgins  should  always 
be  veiled  in  the  Church.  Some  dissented  from  his  views,  and  he 
returned  to  the  subject  in  a  special  treatise,  De  virginibus  velandis, 
in  which  he  appealed  to  the  Paraclete,  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the 
discipline  of  the  Church,  and  went  beyond  his  former  demand  by 
insisting  that  these  virgins,  once  they  had  reached  the  age  of  ma- 
turity, should  be  always  and  everywhere  veiled.  De  fiiga  in  per- 
secution is  a  Montanist  work,  written  towards  the  close  of  212; 
it  forbids  as  absolutely  illicit  flight  of  any  kind  during  the  stress 
of  persecution.  De  ieiunio  adver sus  psychicos  is  one  of  the  most 
offensive  of  his  Montanist  writings;  in  it  he  denounces  (c.  1)  the 
Catholics  as  gluttons  because  they  observe  a  certain  moderation  in 
fasting. 

De   patientia   is   printed   in  Hurter,    SS.  Patr.  opusc.  selecta,    iv;   also 
ib.)  De  oratione,  ii;   De  paenitentia,  v.     De  paenitentia  and  De  pudicitia 


1 88  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

were  edited  apart  by  E.  Preuschen,  Freiburg,  1891  (Sammlung  ausgewählter 
Quellenschriften,  ii),  and  by  P.  de  Labriolle,  with  a  French  translation  (Coll. 
Hemmer  et  Lejay),  Paris,  1906,  lxvii.  237.  Cf.  Preuschen,  Tertullians  Schrif- 
ten De  paenitentia  und  De  pudicitia  mit  Rücksicht  auf  die  Bußdisziplin 
untersucht  (Inaug.-Diss.),  Tübingen,  1890;  also  E.  Rolffs,  Das  Indulgenz- 
edikt  des  römischen  Bischofs  Kaliist,  Leipzig,  1893  (Texte  und  Unter- 
suchungen, xi.  3).  G.  Esser,  De  pudic.  c.  21  und  der  Primat  des  röm. 
Bischofs,  in  «Katholik»  (1903),  3,  193—220.  —  Ad  martyres  is  found  in 
Hurter,  1.  c,  iv;  there  is  also  an  edition  by  T.  H.  Bindley,  Oxford,  1894, 
—  On  the  De  monogamia  see  Rolffs,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen 
(1895),  xii.  4,  50—109:  «Tertullians  Gegner  in  De  monogamia» ;  cf.  §  35,  5. 
E.  Klussmann  has  published  an  excellent  separate  edition  of  De  specta- 
culis,  Leipzig,  1876.  See  his  Adnot.  crit.  ad  Tert.  libr.  de  spectac,  Rudol- 
stadt,  1876.  For  the  purpose  and  the  sources  of  the  De  spectaculis  cf. 
E.  Nöldechen,  in  Zeitschr.  für  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1894),  xxxvii.  91 — 125; 
Neue  Jahrb.  für  deutsche  Theol.  (1894),  iii.  206—226;  Zeitschr.  für  Kirchen- 
gesch.  (1894 — 1895),  xv-  161  —  203;  Philologies,  Suppl.  (1894),  vi.  2,  727 
to  766.  K.  Werber,  Tertullians  Schrift  De  spectac.  in  ihrem  Verhältnis 
zu  Varros  Rerum  divinarum  libri  (Progr.) ,  Teschen,  1896.  On  the  De 
ieiunio  see  Rolffs,  1.  c.  (1895),  xii.  4,  5 — 49:  «Tertullians  Gegner  in  De 
ieiunio». 

6.  THE  «DE  ANIMA»  AND  «DE  PALLIO».  —  Two  works  of  Ter- 
tullian  do  not  fall  into  any  of  the  above-mentioned  groups ;  they  merit 
therefore  a  distinct  mention.  De  anima  belongs  to  his  Montanist 
period  (cc.  9  45  58)  and  was  written  after  the  second  book  against 
Marcion  (c.  21).  It  is  the  first  Christian  psychology,  though  less  a 
manual  of  philosophy  than  of  theology,  its  purpose  being  (c.  1 — 3) 
to  describe  the  doctrine  of  the  soul  according  to  Christian  revelation 
and  to  refute  the  philosophic  or  rather  Gnostic  heresy  that  hid  itself 
beneath  the  cloak  of  philosophy.  The  first  section  (cc.  4 — 22)  deals 
with  the  nature  and  the  faculties  of  the  soul.  While  he  does  not 
deny  the  immaterial  character  of  the  latter,  he  believes  himself  bound 
to  maintain  a  certain  degree  of  corporeity;  for  a  condition  of  pure 
spirituality  was  unintelligible  to  him1.  In  the  second  section  (cc.  23 
to  41)  he  investigates  the  problem  of  the  specific  origin  of  each  soul, 
rejects  the  theories  of  pre-existence  and  of  metempsychosis,  and 
opposes  to  creatianism  the  crassest  generatianism  or  traducianism. 
In  the  act  of  generation  man  reproduces  his  whole  nature,  body  and 
soul.  The  third  section  (cc.  42 — 58)  treats  of  death,  sleep,  the  world 
of  dreams,  the  state  and  place  of  the  soul  after  death.  The  curious 
little  work  De  pallio,  written  between  209  and  211  (cf.  c.  2),  owes  its 
origin  to  a  personal  circumstance.  For  some  unknown  reason  Ter- 
tullian  had  put  off  the  toga  and  taken  to  wearing  the  pallium,  an  act 
that  drew  down  on  him  the  satire  of  his  fellow-citizens.  In  this  booklet 
he  justifies  his  conduct  with  playful  art  and  biting  sarcasm. 

Concerning  the  source  of  De  anima,  a  work  on  the  same  subject 
(De  an.  c.  6)  by  Soranus ,    a  physician  of  Ephesus,    see  H.  Diels ,   Doxo- 

1  De  came  Christi,  c.   1 1  ;  Adv.  Praxeam,  c.   7. 


§    5°-      TERTULLIAN.  1 89 

graphi  Graeci,  Berlin,  1890,  pp.  203  ff.  We  owe  to  CI.  Salmasius  an  ex- 
cellent separate  edition  of  the  De  pallio,  Paris,  1622,  Leyden,  1656.  This 
latter  treatise  is  illustrated  by  II.  Kellner,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1870), 
lii.  547 — 566,  and  by  G.  Boissier,  La  fin  du  paganisme,  Paris,  1891  (3.  ed., 
Paris,   1898),  i.   259—304. 

7.  LOST  WRITINGS  OF  TERTULLIAN.  —  Three  of  his  extant  Latin 
works,  he  tells  us,  were  written  also  in  Greek:  De  spectaculis1,  De 
baptismo  or  on  the  invalidity  of  heretical  baptism  (c.  1 5),  De  virginibus 
velandis  (c.  1).  The  Greek  text  of  these  writings  has  perished;  and 
similarly  the  Latin  text  of  a  still  larger  number  of  writings.  We 
know  from  his  own  statement  that  he  published  works  entitled  De 
spe  fide  Hum,  De  paradiso,  Adversus.  Apelleiacos  (?),  De  censu  animae 
adversus  Hermogenum,  Defato.  De  spe  fide  Hum2  promoted  Chiliastic 
views 3.  In  De  paradiso  4  he  discussed  many  questions  concerning  Para- 
dise 5 ;  among  other  things  he  maintained  the  thesis  that  all  departed 
souls,  except  those  of  the  martyrs,  must  wait  in  the  under-world 
«until  the  day  of  the  Lord»6.  Adversus  Apelleiacos  was  directed 
against  the  followers  of  Apelles  (§  25,  7)  who  held  that  not  God, 
but  a  superior  angel  had  created  this  world  and  was  afterwards  seized 
with  regret  for  his  act7.  In  De  censu  animae ,8,  «on  the  origin  of 
the  soul»,  he  refuted  the  doctrine  of  Hermogenes  that  the  soul  was 
material  in  its  origin,  and  there  was  in  man  no  such  thing  as  free 
will 9.  De  fato  was  written  against  the  teachings  of  the  philosophers 
concerning  fate  and  chance 10.  Through  St.  Jerome  we  know  of  three 
(or  rather,  perhaps,  five)  other  works  of  Tertullian.  One  of  them  was 
entitled  De  ecstasi,  or  rather  iszpi  exardazü)Qn,  perhaps  a  Greek  work 
in  defence  of  Montanism  or  the  ecstatic  speech  of  the  Montanist 
prophets.  It  was  originally  in  six  books,  but  when  he  had  read  the 
anti-Montanistic  work  of  Apollonius  (§  35,  3)  he  added  a  seventh 
book  against  the  latter.  A  work  on  marriage,  Ad  amicum  philo- 
sop  hum  de  angustiis  nuptiarum,  is  mentioned  twice  by  St.  Jerome 12. 
Another  lost  work  was  entitled  De  Aaron  veslibzis,  on  the  liturgical 
garments  of  the  High  Priest  in  the  Old  Testament 13.  It  is  supposed 
that  he  wrote  two  other  works:  De  circumcisione  and  De  mundis 
atque  immundis  animalibus 14.  The  index  of  the  Codex  Agobardinus 
shows  that  it  once  contained  three  works  of  Tertullian  entitled:  De 
came  et  anima,  De  animae  submissione ,  De  superstitione  saeculi ; 
nothing  is  known  of  them  beyond  these  titles. 

1   Tert.,  De  corona,  c.   6.  2  Adv.  Marcion.,   iii.   24. 

'  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.    18;   Comra.  in  Ezech.  ad  xxxvi.    1  ss. 
4   Tert.,  De  anima,   c.   55.  5  Id.,  Adv.  Marc  ,  v.    12. 

6  Id.,  De  anima,   c.   55.  7  Id.,  De  carne  Christi,  c.   8. 

8  Id.,  De  anima,   CI,       ,        9  Ib.,   cc.   1   3    11   21   22  24. 

10  lb.,  c.  20;  see  the  citation  in  Planciades  Fulgentius:  Tertull.  opp.  (ed.  Ö/i/er),  ii.  745. 

11  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,   c.   53;   cf.  c.  40  and  also  c.   24.  12  Hier.,  Ep.  22,   22. 
13  Hier.,  Ep.  64,   23.              u     Id.,  Ep.  36,    I. 


I9O  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

8.  SPURIOUS  WRITINGS.  —  In  the  manuscripts  and  editions  there 
is  commonly  added  to  De  praescriptione,  as  an  appendix,  a  Libellus 
adversus  omnes  haereses,  containing  a  list  of  heretics  from  Dositheus 
to  Praxeas.  The  work  is  surely  not  from  Tertullian's  pen,  but  rather 
from  that  of  Victorinus  of  Pettau  (§  58,  1).  The  principal  source 
used  by  its  author  was  the  so-called  Syntagma  of  Hippolytus 
(§  54,  3).  The  works  De  Trinitate  and  De  cibis  Judaicis ,  pu- 
blished in  the  editions  of  Tertullian,  were  written  by  Novatian 
(§  5  5  5  2  3).  A  fragment  De  execrandis  gentium  diis,  proving  from 
the  example  of  Jupiter  that  the  heathens  entertain  unworthy  notions 
of  the  divinity,  is  of  unknown  origin ;  the  diversity  of  style  shows  that 
it  cannot  belong  to  Tertullian.  Neither  is  he  the  author  of  the  poem 
Adver stis  Marcionem  or  Adversus  Marcionitas  in  1302  hexameters 
and  five  books.  It  is  not  only  devoid  of  poetical  merit,  but  frequently 
violates  the  rules  of  grammar  and  prosody.  Hückstädt  and  Oxe 
agree  in  attributing  it  to  the  latter  half  of  the  fourth  century,  the 
former  to  a  writer  in  Rome,  the  latter  to  one  in  Africa,  while  Waitz 
maintains  that  it  was  composed   by  Commodianus  (§  57). 

For  the  Libellus  adversus  omnes  haereses  (Oehler,  1.  c,  ii.  751 — 765) 
see  the  literature  on  the  Syntagma  of  Hippolytus  (§  54,  3).  E.  Hückstädt, 
Über  das  pseudo  -  tertullianische  Gedicht  Adv.  Marcionem  (Inaug.  -  Diss.), 
Leipzig,  1875.  A.  Oxe',  Prolegomena  de  carmine  Adv.  Marcionitas  (Dissert, 
inaug.),  Leipzig,  1888;  also  Oxi,  Victorini  versus  de  lege  Domini,  ein  un- 
edierter  Cento  aus  dem  Carmen  Adv.  Marcionitas  (Progr.),  Krefeld,  1894. 
H.  Waitz,  Das  pseudo  -  tertullianische  Gedicht  Adv.  Marcionem,  Darm- 
stadt, 1 90 1.  For  the  poems  De  genesi  cf.  Oehler,  1.  c. ,  ii.  774—776 
(§  88,  2),  De  Sodoma  and  De  Jona  ib.,  ii.  769  —  773  (§  88,  2).  See  §  116,  5 
for  the  poem  De  iudicio  Domini  {Oehler,  1.  c. ,  ii.  776 — 781),  also  found 
amidst  the  works  of  Cyprian  (ed.  Hartel,  iii.  308—325)  where  it  is  entitled 
Ad  Flavium  Felicem  de  resurrectione  mortuorum. 

§  51.     St.  Cyprian. 

I.  HIS  LIFE.  —  One  of  the  most  attractive  figures  in  early  eccle- 
siastical literature  is  the  noble  bishop  of  Carthage,  Thascius  Caecilius 
Cyprianus.  The  Vita  Caecilii  Cypriani,  which  describes  his  con- 
version to  the  Christian  faith,  was  written  soon  after  his  death  by 
one  closely  related  to  him  and  thoroughly  informed 1  according  to 
St  Jerome  by  his  deacon  and  companion  Pontius.  From  his  own 
writings,  however,  especially  from  his  correspondence,  we  acquire  a 
better  knowledge  of  his  life  both  private  and  public.  He  was  born 
about  the  year  200  in  Africa,  of  wealthy  heathen  parents,  embraced 
the  career  of  a  rhetorician  and  as  such  won  brilliant  renown  at 
Carthage2.  About  246  he  was  converted  to  Christianity  by  Cae- 
cilianus  (Vita  c.  4)    or  Caecilius3,    a   priest   of  Carthage,    soon    after 

1  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,   c.  68.  2  Lact.,  Div.  Inst.,  v.   1,   24. 

3  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  67. 


i 


ST.    CYPRIAN. 


191 


which  he  was  admitted  among  the  clergy.  At  the  end  of  248  or 
early  in  249,  he  was  made  bishop  of  Carthage  and  metropolitan  of 
proconsular  Africa.  He  discharged  the  duties  of  this  office  during 
ten  stormy  years  with  indefatigable  zeal  and  great  success.  In  the 
sanguinary  persecution  of  Decius  (250—251),  during  which  he  fled 
from  Carthage  and  kept  himself  in  concealment,  many  renounced 
the  Christian  faith  and  were  known  as  sacrificati  or  thurificati, 
libellatici,  acta  facientes.  The  question  regarding  the  treatment  of 
these  lapsi  or  rather  the  conditions  of  their  reconciliation  with  the 
Church  led  to  a  schism  at  Carthage  as  well  as  at  Rome.  The 
deacon  Felicissimus  became  the  leader  of  a  party  which  reproached 
Cyprian  with  his  great  severity,  while  at  Rome  a  part  of  the  com- 
munity ranged  itself  under  the  banner  of  Novatian  and  withdrew 
from  communion  with  Pope  Cornelius  because  of  his  excessive  mildness 
in  the  treatment  of  similar  «fallen»  brethren.  The  controversy  on 
the  validity  of  heretical  baptism  was  the  occasion  of  other  grave 
disorders.  Cyprian  held  with  Tertullian  (§50,  4  7)  that  baptism 
administered  by  heretics  was  invalid;  he  therefore  baptized  anew 
all  who  returned  from  an  heretical  body  to  the  communion  of  the 
Church.  In  this  he  was  sustained  by  several  councils  that  met 
at  Carthage  under  his  presidency  in  255,  in  the  spring  of  256,  and 
Sept.  1.,  256.  But  Pope  Stephen  I.  rejected  their  views  and  de- 
clared :  Si  qui  ergo  a  quaciimque  haeresi  venient  ad  vos ,  nihil 
innovelur  nisi  quod  traditum  est,  ut  manus  Ulis  imponatur  in  paeni- 
tentiam1.  The  ensuing  persecution  of  Valerian  and  the  death  of  the 
Pope  prevented  a  formal  conflict  between  Stephen  and  Cyprian.  The 
latter  was  beheaded,  September  14.,  258,  in  the  gardens  of  the  pro- 
consular Villa  Sexti,  not  far  from  Carthage ;  the  Acta  proconsularia, 
or  official  record  of  his  execution,  are  still  extant. 

The  Vita  Caecilii  Cypriani  and  Acta  proconsularia  are  usually  published 
with  the  works  of  Cyprian  (ed.  Hartel,  iii  [187 1].  xc — cxiv).  —  C.  Suys- 
kenus ,  De  S.  Cypriano,  in  Acta  SS.  Sept.,  Venice,  1761,  iv.  191—348. 
Fr.  W.  Rettberg,  Thascius  Caecilius  Cyprianus,  Göttingen,  1831.  Fr.  Böh- 
ringer,  Die  Kirche  Christi  und  ihre  Zeugen,  2.  ed.,  iii — iv.  Die  lateinisch- 
afrikanische  Kirche :  Tertullianus,  Cyprianus,  Stuttgart,  1864,  reprinted  1873. 
C.  F.  Freppel ,  St.  Cyprien,  Paris,  1865;  3.  ed.  1890.  J.  Feters,  Der 
hl.  Cyprian  von  Karthago,  Ratisbon,  1877.  B.  Fechtrup,  Der  hl.  Cyprian, 
I,  Münster,  1878.  F.  Wh.  Benson,  Cyprian,  London,  1897.  F.  Mo?iceaux, 
Histoire  litteraire  de  l'Afrique  chretienne.  II:  St.  Cyprien  et  son  temps, 
Paris,  1902.  Cf.  H.  Grisar,  Cyprians  «Oppositions-Konzil»  gegen  Papst 
Stephan,  in  Zeitschr.  für  kathol.  Theol.  (1881),  V.  193 — 221  (He  holds 
that  the  decision  of  Stephen  was  issued  not  before,  but  after  the  council  ot 
September  i.  256).  —  J.  Ernst ,  War  der  hl.  Cyprian  exkommuniziert? 
Ib.,  1894,  xviii.  473-^499  (he  was  not).  Id.,  Der  angebliche  Widerruf  des 
hl.  Cyprian  in  der  Ketzertauffrage,  ib.,  1895,  xix.  234—272.  F.  Kemper, 
De  vitarum  Cypriani,  Martini  Turonensis,  Ambrosii,  Augustini  rationibus 
(Dissert.),  Münster,   1904. 

1   Cypr.,  Ep.   74,    1    (ed.  Hartel). 


192  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

2.  HIS  WRITINGS.  —  The  writings  of  Cyprian,  collected  at  a  very 
early  date,  were  read  with  diligence  and  zealously  multiplied.  Pontius 
himself  possessed  a  collection  of  the  treatises  of  Cyprian  and  has 
left  us  a  rhetorical  paraphrase  of  their  titles  or  themes  {Vita  c.  7). 
It  is  both  interesting  and  suggestive  to  note  that  in  an  ancient  and 
anonymous  Catalogue  of  the  Libri  Ccwionici  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  (derived  from  a  copy  of  the  same  made  in  359)  the 
writings  of  Cyprian,  both  treatises  and  letters,  are  also  indicated, 
with  the  number  of  lines  contained  in  each  (cum  indiculis  versuum). 
St.  Jerome  felt  that  he  was  not  bound  to  furnish  a  catalogue  of  the 
writings  of  Cyprian:  Huius  ingenii  superfluum  est  indicem  texere, 
cum  sole  clariora  smt  eius  opera1.  These  works  are  still  extant 
in  almost  countless  manuscripts,  some  of  which  reach  back  to  the 
sixth  century.  So  far  as  we  know,  only  a  few  of  his  letters  have 
been  lost. 

His  writings  fall  spontaneously  into  two  groups :  treatises  (sermones, 
libelli,  tractatus)  and  letters.  The  voice  that  resounds  in  both  groups 
is  that  of  a  bishop  and  a  shepherd  of  souls.  He  is  a  man  of  prac- 
tice and  not  of  theory,  a  man  of  faith  and  not  of  speculation.  When 
he  takes  up  the  pen,  it  is  in  behalf  of  practical  aims  and  interests; 
thus,  where  oral  discourse  is  insufficient,  he  hastens  to  succour  the 
good  cause  with  his  writings.  He  does  not  go  far  afield  in  theoretical 
discussion,  but  appeals  to  the  Christian  and  ecclesiastical  sentiments 
of  his  hearers,  and  bases  his  argument  on  the  authority  of  the  Sacred 
Scriptures.  He  exhibits  on  all  occasions  a  spirit  of  moderation  and 
mildness  and  a  remarkable  power  of  organization.  He  never  loses 
himself  in  pursuit  of  intangible  ideals  but  follows  consistently  the 
aims  that  he  has  grasped  with  clearness  and  decision.  St.  Augustine 
outlined  his  character  correctly  when  he  called  him  a  Catholic  bishop 
and  a  Catholic  martyr  (catholicum  episcopum,  catholicum  martyrem)*. 
The  central  idea  of  his  life  is  the  unity  of  the  Catholic  Church ;  it 
has  been  rightly  said  that  this  concept  is  like  the  root  whence  issue 
all  his  doctrinal  writings.  Indeed,  he  is  nowhere  so  independent  and 
original  as  in  his  work  De  catholicae  ecclesiae  unitate.  In  his  other 
works  he  very  frequently  borrows  from  Tertullian3;  we  learn  from 
the  same  source  that  he  read  the  works  of  that  writer  every  day.  It 
was  his  wont  when  calling  on  his  secretary  for  a  book  of  Tertullian 
to  exclaim:  Da  magistrum^.  At  the  same  time,  whatever  the  degree 
of  his  literary  dependency,  his  own  personality  is  apparent  in  every 
one  of  his  writings.  The  thoughts  of  Cyprian  may  be  close  akin  to 
the  thoughts  of  Tertullian,  but  the  form  in  which  the  bishop  of 
Carthage  clothes  these  thoughts  differs  widely  'from  the  style  of 
Tertullian.     The  diction  of  Cyprian  is   free  and   pleasing,    and  flows 

1  De  viris  ill.,  c.  67.  2  Aug.,  De  bapt.,  iii.   3,   5. 

3  Hier.,  Ep.   84,   2.  4  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,   c.   53. 


§    51-      ST.    CYPRIAN.  I93 

in  a  tranquil  and  clear,  almost  transparent  stream  *.  His  language  is 
at  all  times  enlivened  and  exalted  by  the  warmth  of  his  feelings. 
Quite  frequently  the  page  is  colored  by  images  and  allegories  chosen 
with  taste  and  finished  with  skilful  attention  to  the  smallest  detail; 
not  a  few  of  them  became  more  or  less  the  common  places  of  later 
ecclesiastical  literature. 

The  Catalogue  of  the  Libri  Canonici  and  the  works  of  Cyprian,  be- 
longing to  the  year  359,  was  first  edited  by  Th.  Mommsen,  in  Hermes 
(1886),  xxi.  142 — 156;  cf.  (1890),  xxv.  636—638.  On  the  same  theme  see 
W.  Sanday  and  C.  H.  Turner,  in  Studia  biblica  et  ecclesiastica ,  Oxford 
1891,  iii.  217 — 325.  K.  G.  Götz,  Geschichte  der  cyprianischen  Literatur  bis 
zu  der  Zeit  der  ersten  erhaltenen  Handschriften  (Inaug.  -  Diss.) ,  Basle, 
1 89 1.  —  On  the  manuscripts  of  Cyprian  cf.  Hartel,  in  his  own  edition 
(187 1),  iii.  1 — lxx;  also  Harnack,  Geschichte  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  i.  697 
to  701.  C.  H.  Turner,  The  original  order  and  contents  of  our  oldest 
Ms.  of  St.  Cyprian,  in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1902),  iii.  282 — 285;  A 
newly  discovered  leaf  of  a  fifth-century  manuscript  of  St.  Cyprian,  ib.,  iii. 
576 — 578;  Our  oldest  manuscripts  of  St.  Cyprian:  The  Turin  and  Milan 
Fragment,  ib.,  iii.  579—584.  Dom  Ramsay,  Our  oldest  manuscripts  of 
St.  Cyprian,  ib.,  iii.  585  —  594. 

The  complete  works  of  Cyprian  were  first  published  by  J.  Andreas, 
Rome,  1 47 1.  Then  followed  the  editions  of  D.  Erasmus,  Basle,  1520;  J.  Pa- 
melius,  Antwerp.  1568 •  M.  Rigaltius,  Paris,  1648 ;  J.  Fell  and  J.  Pearson,  Ox- 
ford, 1682;  Stephen  Baluzius  and  Pr.  Mar  anus,  Paris,  1726.  The  edition  of 
Migne  (PL.  iii — v)  reproduces,  very  incorrectly,  the  text  of  Baluzius  and 
Maranus.  The  most  recent  and  the  best  edition  of  the  works  of  St.  Cyprian 
is  that  of  W.  von  Hartel,  Vienna,  1868 — 187 1,  in  three  parts  {Corpus 
scriptorum  eccl.  Lat. ,  iii,  pars  i — iii).  For  a  criticism  of  the  Hartel 
edition  cf.  P.  de  Lagarde,  in  Göttinger  Gelehrten  Anzeigen  (187 1),  pp.  521 
to  543  (reprinted  in  P.  de  Lagarde,  Symmikta,  Göttingen,  1877,  pp.  65 
to  78).  —  G  Mercati,  D'alcuni  nuovi  sussidii  per  la  critica  del  testo  di 
S.  Cypriano,  Rome,  1899.  A  German  version  of  most  of  the  treatises  was 
published  by  U.  Uhl,  Kempten,  1869,  and  all  the  letters  by  J.  Niglutsch 
and  A.  Egger,  ib.,  1879  (Bibl.  der  Kirchenväter).  —  Le  Provost,  Etude 
philologique  et  litteraire  sur  St.  Cyprien,  Pans,  1889.  E.  W.  Watson,  The 
style  and  language  of  St.  Cyprian,  in  Studia  bibl.  et  eccles.,  Oxford,  1896, 
iv.  189 — 324.  L.  Bayard ,  Le  latin  de  St.  Cyprien,  Paris,  1902.  E.  de 
Jonghe ,  Les  clausules  de  Saint  Cyprien,  in  Musee  Beige  (1902),  vi.  344 
to  363. 

For  the  doctrine  of  St.  Cyprian  cf.  J.  Peters ,  Die  Lehre  des  hl.  Cy- 
prian von  der  Einheit  der  Kirche,  Luxemburg,  1870.  J.  H.  Reinkens, 
Die  Lehre  des  hl.  Cyprian  von  der  Einheit  der  Kirche,  Würzburg,  1873. 
De  Leo ,  In  librum  S.  Cypr.  De  unitate  ecclesiae  disquisitio  critico-theo- 
logica,  Naples,  1877.  O.  Ritschi,  Cyprian  von  Karthago  und  die  Ver- 
fassung der  Kirche,  Göttingen,  1885.  J.  de  la  Rochelle,  L'idee  de  l'eglise 
dans  St.  Cyprien,  in  Revue  d'histoire  et  de  litte'rature  religieuses  (1896), 
i.  519 — 533.  P  v.  Hoensbroech,  Der  römische  Primat  bezeugt  durch  den 
hl.  Cyprian,  in  Zeitschr.  für  kathol.  Theol.  (1890),  xiv.  193 — 230;  Id.,  Zur 
Auffassung  Cyprians  von  der  Ketzertaufe,  ib.  (1891),  xv.  727 — 736.  J.Ernst, 
Zur  Auffassung  Cyprians  von  der  Ketzertaufe,  ib.  (1893),  xvii.  79 — 103. 
K.  G  Götz,  Die  Bußlehre  Cyprians,  Königsberg,   1894.    K.  Müller,  Die  Buß- 

1  Lact.,  Div.  Inst.,  v.   I,   25;  Hier.,  Ep.   58,   10. 
Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  13 


194  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

institution  in  Karthago  unter  Cyprian,  in  Zeitschr.  für  Kirchengesch.  (1895 
to  1896),  xvi.  1 — 44,  187 — 219.  K.  G.  Götz,  Das  Christentum  Cyprians,  Gießen, 
1896.  K.  H.  Wirth,  Der  «Verdienst»-Begriff  in  der  christl.  Kirche  nach 
seiner  geschichtlichen  Entwicklung  dargestellt;  II:  Der  «Verdienst»-Begriff 
bei  Cyprian,  Leipzig,  1901.  A.  Melardi,  S.  Cypriano  di  Cartagine:  con- 
tributo  all' apologetica  latina  del  3.  secolo,  Potenza,  1901.  —  P.  Corssen, 
Der  cyprianische  Text  der  Acta  apostol.  (Progr.),  Berlin,  1892.  J.  Heiden- 
reich, Der  neutestamentliche  Text  bei  Cyprian  verglichen  mit  dem  Vulgata- 
text,  Bamberg,  1900.  A.  Harnack,  Cyprian  als  Enthusiast,  in  Zeitschr.  für 
die  neutestamentl.  Wissensch.  (1902),  iii.  177 — 191.  P.  St.  John,  A  dis- 
puted point  in  St.  Cyprian's  attitude  towards  the  Primacy,  in  American 
Ecclesiastical  Review  (1903),  xxix.  162 — 182.  J.  P.  Knaabe ,  Die  Pre- 
digten des  Tertullian  und  Cyprian,  in  Theol.  Studien  und  Kritiken  (1903), 
lxxvi.  606 — 639. 

3.  TREATISES.  —  Pontius  mentions1  eleven  or  twelve  treatises 
of  Cyprian  in  the  following,  perhaps  also  the  chronological,  order: 
a)  Ad  Donatum,  an  outpouring  of  his  heart  addressed  to  an  other- 
wise unknown  friend,  for  whom  he  depicts  the  new  life  entered  on 
by  baptismal  regeneration;  it  was  probably  composed  shortly  after 
his  conversion.  The  poetical  form  and  the  style  of  the  treatise  betray 
the  former  rhetorician2,  b)  De  habitu  virginum  (in  the  Catalogue 
of  359:  Ad  virgines),  a  pastoral  letter  to  women,  especially  to  those 
virgins  who  had  dedicated  themselves  to  the  service  of  the  Lord. 
Cyprian  calls  them  «the  blossoms  on  the  tree  of  the  Church»  (c.  3). 
He  puts  them  on  their  guard  particularly  against  vanity  in  dress. 
This  treatise  resembles  very  much  the  De  caltu  feminamm  of  Tertullian. 
c)  De  lapsis,  composed  in  the  spring  of  251,  immediately  after  the 
persecution  of  Decius  and  his  own  return  to  Carthage.  In  it  he 
laments  most  touchingly  the  apostasy  of  so  many  brethren  ;  their  recon- 
ciliation must  depend  on  a  good  confession  and  the  performance  of 
a  corresponding  penance,  d)  To  the  same  year  belongs  the  immortal 
work  De  catholicae  ecclesiae  imitate,  a  forcible  exposition  and  defence 
of  the  Church,  to  which  alone  were  made  the  promises  of  salvation, 
and  not  to  the  schisms  at  Rome  and  Carthage.  Christ  founded  His 
Church  on  one,  on  Peter ;  the  unity  of  the  foundation  guarantees  that  of 
the  edifice.  Schism  and  heresy  are  the  weapons  of  Satan.  That  person 
cannot  have  God  for  his  Father  who  has  not  the  Church  for  his  mother 
{habere  non  potest  Deum  patrem,  qui  ecclesiam  non  habet  matrem, 
c.  6).  e)  The  treatise  of  Cyprian  De  dominiea  oratione,  written  about 
the  beginning  of  252,  is  similar  in  its  contents  to  Tertullian's  De 
oratione,  and  is  important  chiefly  for  its  lengthy  exposition  of  the  Lord's 
Prayer  (cc.  7 — 27),  a  feature  that  made  it  much  beloved  in  Christian 
antiquity3,  f)  Ad Demetrianum,  probably  composed  early  in  252,  and 
markedly  apologetic  in  tendency.  The  sufferings  of  these  unhappy 
times,    war,   pestilence  and   famine,  which  the  heathen   to  whom  he 

1  Vita  c.   7.  2  Aug.,  De  doctr.  christ.,   iv.    14,  31. 

3  Hit,  Comm.  in  Matth.,   v.    1. 


§    51.      ST.    CYPRIAN.  I95 

writes  attributed  to  the  Christian  contempt  of  the  gods,  are  really 
divine  punishments,  inflicted  on  account  of  the  obstinacy  and  wickedness 
of  the  heathens,  and  in  particular  of  their  persecution  of  the  Christians. 
g)  The  De  mortalitate  owes  its  origin  to  a  pestilence  that  raged  at 
Carthage  and  in  the  neighborhood,  especially  from  252 — 254.  It  is 
such  a  discourse  of  consolation  as  a  bishop  might  deliver,  and  breathes 
in  every  line  a  magnanimity  of  soul  and  a  power  of  faith  that  are 
most  touching.  The  fact  that  the  pestilence  carried  off  both  the 
faithful  and  the  unbelievers  ought  not  to  surprise  the  former,  since 
by  word  and  example  the  Scripture  makes  known  to  all  Christians 
that  it  is  their  especial  destiny  to  suffer  trial  and  tribulation.  Temptation 
is  only  the  prelude  of  victory,  trial  an  occasion  of  merit,  and  death 
the  transit  to  a  better  life,  h)  The  De  opere  et  eleemosynis,  an  ex- 
hortation to  efficacious  charity  towards  our  neighbor,  owes  its  origin, 
probably,  to  similar  circumstances.  Almsgiving  is,  in  a  certain  sense, 
a  means  of  obtaining  grace ;  it  appeases  the  divine  wrath  and  atones 
for  our  postbaptismal  faults  and  entitles  us  to  a  higher  degree  of 
eclestial  happiness,  i)  De  bono  patientiae  was  written  during  the 
conflict  concerning  heretical  baptism  \%  very  probably  in  the  summer  of 
256  in  the  hope  of  calming  the  irritation  and  anger  of  his  opponents, 
and  as  a  pledge  of  the  author's  own  anxiety  for  the  restoration  of 
peace.  It  draws  largely  on  the  De  patientia  of  Tertullian.  k)  De 
zelo  et  livore  was  probably  meant  to  complete  the  preceding  treatise; 
it  is  at  once  the  work  of  a  reconciling  arbiter  and  a  deciding 
judge.  Envy  and  jealousy  are  poisonous  growths  that  often  strike 
deep  roots  in  the  soil  of  the  Church,  and  bring  forth  the  most  de- 
plorable fruits :  hatred,  schism,  dissatisfaction,  insubordination.  1)  Ad 
Fortunatum  is  a  collection  of  passages  from  Holy  Writ  put  together 
at  the  request  of  the  recipient,  and  likely  to  confirm  the  faithful  soul 
in  the  tempest  of  persecution,  which  we  assume  to  be  that  of  Valerian, 
that  had  been  raging  since  the  middle  of  257.  Thirteen  theses 
relative  to  this  grievous  trial  are  set  forth;  each  of  them  is  con- 
firmed by  quotations  from  the  Bible,  m)  Pontius  appears  to  have 
been  acquainted  with  another  treatise  that  encouraged  confessors  to 
be  brave  unto  the  end;  but  it  has  not  been  possible  to  identify  it 
with  any  certainty. 

y.  G.  Krabinger  published  excellent  editions  of  the  De  catholicae  ec- 
clesiae  unitate,  De  lapsis,  De  habitu  virginum,  Tübingen,  1853,  also  of  the 
other  treatises,  Ad  Donatum ,  De  domi?iica  oratione ,  De  mortalitate,  Ad 
Demetrianum,  De  opere  et  eleemosynis,  De  bono  patientiae,  De  zelo  et  livore 
Tübingen,,  1859.  K.  Hurter,  Ss.  Patr.  opusc.  select.,  contains  in  vol.  I 
Ad  Demetr.  and  De  cath.  eccl.  unit. ;  in  vol.  II :  De  dorn.  orat.  \  in  vol.  IV 
De  mortal,,  De  op.  et  ehem.  and  De  bono  pat. ;  in  vol.  V :  De  lapsis.  On 
the  De  opere  et  eleemosynis  cf.  E.  W.  Watson,  in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies 
(1901),  ii.  433 — 438.   K.  G.  Götz  has  tried  to  show,  but  without  success,  in 

1  Cypr.,  Ep.   73,   26. 

13* 


I96  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  xix,  new  series  (1899)  iv.  ic. ,  that  the  brief 
letter  Donatus  Cypriano  (ed.  Hartel,  iii.  272),  hitherto  held  to  be  spurious, 
is  really  the  beginning  of  the  treatise  Ad  Donatum.  Dom  Ramsay,  An 
Uncial  Fragment  of  the  Ad  Donatum  of  St.  Cyprian,  in  Journal  of  Theol. 
Studies  (1902),  iv.  86 — 89.  Concerning  De  hab.  virg.  cf.  J.  Haussleiter, 
in  Commentationes  Woelfflinianae,  Leipzig,  1891,  pp.  377 — 389.  B.  Aubt, 
L'Eglise  et  l'Etat  dans  la  seconde  moitie  du  me  siecle.  Paris,  1885,  pp.  305  ff., 
calls  in  doubt,  without  any  good  reason,  the  genuineness  ol  Ad  Demetrianum. 
In  the  Revue  Benedictine  (1902),  xix.  246 — 254,  J.  Chapman  began  a 
study  on  the  well-known  interpolations  in  De  catholicae  ecclesiae  unitate  in 
favor  of  the  Roman  Church,  hitherto  never  submitted  to  a  close  exami- 
nation; Id. ,  The  interpolations  in  St.  Cyprian's  De  unitate  ecclesiae,  in 
Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1904),  v.  634 — 636;  cf.  E.  IV.  Watson,  The 
interpolations  in  St.  Cyprian's  De  unitate  ecclesiae,  ib.,  v.  432 — 436.  — 
P.  Franchi  de'  Cavalieri,  Un  nuovo  libello  originale  di  libellatici  della  per- 
secuzione  deciana,  in  Miscellanea  di  storia  e  cultura  eccles.  (1904).  L.  Cha- 
balier,  Les  lapsi  dans  l'Eglise  d'Afrique  au  temps  de  Saint  Cyprien  (These), 
Lyon,   1904. 

4.  TREATISES  (CONTINUED).  —  The  work  Ad  Quirinum  in  three 
books,  known  formerly  as  Testimoniorum  libri  adversus  Judaeos, 
contains  a  demonstration  of  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  and  the  vocation* 
of  the  Christians  (book  i),  a  sketch  of  Christology  (book  ii),  and  an 
introduction  to  a  Christian  and  virtuous  life  (book  iii,  probably  a  later 
addition).  At  the  beginning  of  each  book  are  several  theses,  each  of 
which,  after  the  manner  of  the  treatise  Ad  Fortunattim,  is  in  its  turn 
proved  by  a  series  of  citations  from  Holy  Writ.  The  first  express  mention 
of  the  work  is  found  in  the  afore-mentioned  Catalogue  of  the  year  359. 
Before  that  date  several  ancient  writers  (Pseudo-Cyprian  Adversus 
aleatores,  Commodian,  Lactantius,  Firmicus  Maternus)  had  already 
made  good  use  of  its  Scriptural  treasures.  The  work  is  certainly 
authentic.  The  tractate  Quod  idola  dii  non  sint  is  largely  a  com- 
pilation from  the  Octavius  of  Minucius  Felix  and  the  Apologeticum 
of  Tertullian.  It  is  first  mentioned  by  St.  Jerome1.  The  authorship 
of  Cyprian  is  uncertain.  Haussleiter  maintains,  but  without  success, 
the  authorship  of  Novatian. 

B.  Dofjibart,  Über  die  Bedeutung  Commodians  für  die  Textkritik  der 
Testimonia  Cyprians,  in  Zeitschr.  für  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1879),  xxii.  374 
to  389.  For  the  genuineness  of  the  third  book  Ad  Quirinum  cf.  J.  Hauss- 
leiter, in  Comment.  Woelfflin.  (1891),  pp.  377  ff.  Dom  Ramsay,  On  early 
insertions  in  the  third  book  of  St.  Cyprian's  Testimonia,  in  Journal  of  Theol. 
Studies  (1901),  ii.  276—288.  See  also  C.  H  Turner,  Prolegomena  to  the 
Testimonia  of  St.  Cyprian,  ib.  (1905),  vi.  246 — 270.  Concerning  the  origin 
of  Quod  idola  dii  non  sint  see  Haussleiter,  in  Theol.  Literaturblatt  (1894), 
xv.  481 — 487. 

5.  THE  LETTERS  OF  CYPRIAN.  —  The  collection  of  the  Letters 
of  Cyprian  contains,  in  the  latest  editions,  eighty-one  pieces  or 
numbers,  sixty-five  of  which  are  from  his  hand ;  the  others  are  mostly 

1  Ep-   70,   5- 


§    51.      ST.    CYPRIAN.  I97 

letters  addressed  to  him.  By  reason  of  its  very  copious  contents  this 
collected  correspondence  of  Cyprian  is  a  primary  source  of  authori- 
tative information  concerning  the  life  and  discipline  of  the  primitive 
Church.  All  the  letters  date  from  the  period  of  his  episcopal  rule  in 
Carthage  (248/249 — 258).  In  the  Vienna  or  Hartel  edition  of  187 1,  they 
are  numbered  according  to  the  Oxford  recension  of  1682;  but  later 
researches  render  necessary  certain  modifications  in  the  accepted  order 
of  the  correspondence.  The  letters  may  be  divided  into  the  following 
groups:  a)  Letters  whose  dates  cannot  be  ascertained;  they  are  1 — 4 
and  63  (ed.  Hartel);  they  contain  no  references  to  contemporary 
persons  or  events,  and  probably  were  all  composed  before  the  per- 
secution ofDecius.  Letter  63,  entitled  in  the  manuscripts  De  Sacra- 
mento dominici  calicis ,  is  a  precious  confirmation  of  the  traditional 
Catholic  doctrine  concerning  the  sacrificial  character  of  the  Eucharist. 
b)  Letters  sent  to  Carthage  in  the  first  period  of  the  Decian  per- 
secution (250);  they  are  5 — 7  and  10 — 19,  and  were  addressed  from 
his  hiding  place  to  the  clergy  and  the  faithful  of  the  city.  They 
contain  exhortations  to  prudence,  to  perseverance  on  the  part  of  the 
confessors,  to  care  of  the  poor,  and  also  some  reproaches  and  de- 
cisions in  the  matter  of  the  lap  si  (15 — 19).  c)  The  correspondence 
of  Cyprian  (representing  the  clergy  of  Carthage)  with  the  Roman 
clergy  in  whose  hands  lay  the  government  of  the  Church  during  the 
vacancy  between  the  death  of  Fabian  and  the  succession  of  Cornelius 
(Jan.  250  to  March  251).  In  all  there  are  twelve  of  these  letters: 
8  9  20  21  22  27  28  30  31  35  36  37.  In  letter  20  Cyprian  justifies 
his  flight  and  explains  his  manner  of  dealing  with  the  lapsi;  he 
returns  to  the  same  subject  in  letters  27  and  35.  In  letters  30  and  36, 
the  Roman  clergy,  by  the  hand  of  Novatian,  assure  Cyprian  that 
they  are  in  full  agreement  with  him  as  to  the  treatment  of  the  lapsi. 

d)  Letters  sent  to  Carthage  in  the  last  period  of  the  Decian  per- 
secution (250-— 251);  they  are  23 — 26  29  32 — 34  38 — 43.  Of  these 
fourteen  letters  twelve  were  written  by  Cyprian;  with  the  exception 
of  two  they  were  addressed  to  the  clergy  and  the  faithful  of  Carthage. 
The    last    three    (41 — 43)    deal    with    the    schism    of   Felicissimus. 

e)  Letters  of  the  years  251 — 252,  relative  to  the  troubles  occasioned 
by  the  schism  of  Novatian,  and  numbered  44—55.  Scarcely  had 
Cyprian  been  accurately  informed  of  what  was  occurring  at  Rome, 
when  he  came  out  with  decisive  energy  in  favor  of  the  legitimate 
pope  Cornelius;  he  could  not,  however,  check  the  spread  of  the 
schism  into  Africa.  Among  the  twelve  letters  of  the  group  are  six 
from  Cyprian  to  Cornelius  and   two  replies   from    the  latter  (49  50). 

f)  Letters  of  the  years  252 — 254,  numbered  56 — 62  64 — 66,;  the 
contents  of  which  are  of  a  miscellaneous  nature.  Letter  57  was  sent 
by  a  Synod  of  Carthage  253  (?)  to  Pope  Cornelius  apropos  of  the  lapsi; 
letter  64  was  written  by  a  Carthaginian  provincial  Synod  in  252  (?)  to 


igg  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

a  certain  bishop  Fidus,  and  treats  mostly  of  the  baptism  of  children. 
g)  Letters  of  the  years  254 — 256,  numbered  67 — 75.  Letter  67  is  a 
sy nodical  letter  in  the  matter  of  Basilides  and  Martial,  Spanish  bishops, 
who  had  been  deposed  as  lapsi;  while  letters  69 — 75  deal  with  the 
validity  of  heretical  baptism.  Letter  70  represents  the  opinions  of  the 
Synod  of  Carthage  held  in  255,  and  letter  72  the  decision  of  the  spring- 
Synod  of  256,  both  dealing  with  the  subject  of  heretical  baptism. 
There  has  also  been  preserved  an  extract  from  the  minutes  of  the 
Synod  of  Carthage,  September  1.  256,  in  which  the  invalidity  of 
heretical  baptism  was  again  asserted  (Sententiae  episcoporuvi  numero 
LXXXVII  de  haereticis  baptizandis).  It  is  usually  placed  not  among 
the  letters,  but  among  the  treatises  of  Cyprian.  Letter  74  reveals  in 
all  its  fulness  the  difference  of  opinion  between  Cyprian  and  Pope 
Stephen.  Concerning  letter  75  cf.  §  47,  7.  h)  Letters  written  during  the 
persecution  of  Valerian  (257 — 258)  and  numbered  76 — 81.  In  letter  76 
we  have  an  admirable  message  of  consolation  from  the  exiled,  bishop 
to  the  martyrs  in  the  mines.  In  letter  81  the  shepherd  of  Carthage, 
while  awaiting  a  martyr's  death,  sends  to  his  flock  a  final  salutation. 

For  the  chronology  of  the  Letters  of  Cyprian  see  O.  Ritschi ,  De 
epistulis  Cyprianicis  (Dissert,  inaug.),  Halle,  1885.  Id.,  Cyprian  von  Kar- 
thago und  die  Verfassung  der  Kirche,  Göttingen,  1885,  pp.  238 — 250. 
P.  Monceaux,  Chronologie  des  oeuvres  de  St.  Cyprien  et  des  conciles  Afri- 
cains  du  temps,  in  Revue  de  Philologie  (1900),  xxxii,  also  the  larger  work 
of  Monceaux  quoted  above  (1  of  this  §).  L.  Nelke,  Die  Chronologie  der 
Korrespondenz  Cyprians  und  der  pseudo-cyprianischen  Schriften  Ad  No- 
vatianum  und  Liber  de  rebaptismate  (Dissert.),  Thorn,  1902.  —  For  the 
correspondence  of  Cyprian  and  the  Roman  clergy  during  the  year  250  see 
A.  Harnack,  in  Theol.  Abhandlungen,  C.  v.  Weizsäcker  gewidmet,  Frei- 
burg, 1892,  pp.  1 — 36.  Concerning  letter  8  see  J.  Haussleiter,  Der  Auf- 
bau der  altchristl.  Literatur,  Berlin,  1898,  pp.  16 — ^.  Letters  8  21  22 
and  23  24  are  written  in  popular  Latin;  they  have  been  edited  anew  by 
A.  Miodonski,  Anonymus  adv.  aleatores,  Erlangen  and  Leipzig,  1889,  pp.  112 
to  126.  On  Letter  42  cf.  E.  Watson,  Cyprianica,  in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies 
(1902 — 1903),  iv.  131,  and  J.  Chapman,  The  order  of  the  Treatises  and 
Letters  in  the  Mss.  of  St.  Cyprian,  ib.,  iv.   103 — 123. 

The  Sententiae  episcoporum  are  found  in  Hartel ,  1.  c,  i.  433 — 461. 
Nelke,  1.  c,  locates  their  composition  about  255.  The  synodal  letters  57 
64  67  70  72  and  the  Sententiae  are  also  found  in  RoutJi,  Reliquiae  sacrae 
(2)  iii.  93 — 131;  for  the  annotationes  see  pp.   132  —  217. 

A  Greek  version  of  the  Sententiae  was  first  published  (complete)  by 
P.  de  Lagarde,  Reliquiae  iuris  eccles.  antiquissimae  graece,  Leipzig,  1856, 
PP-  37 — 55-  The  lost  letters  of  Cyprian  are  discussed  by  Harnack,  Gesch. 
der  altchristl.  Litteratur,  i.  692.  Id.,  Über  verlorene  Briefe  und  Akten- 
stücke, die  sich  aus  der  cyprianischen  Briefsammlung  ermitteln  lassen,  in 
Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  new  series,  Leipzig,  1902,  viii.  2.  Fr.  v.  Soden, 
Die  cyprianische  Briefsammlung.  Geschichte  ihrer  Entstehung  und  Über- 
lieferung, ib.,  new  series,  Leipzig,   1904,  x.  3. 

6.  SPURIOUS  WRITINGS.  —  The  glorious  name  of  Cyprian  was 
soon  invoked  to  cover  many  an  supposititious  composition,     a)  The 


§    51.      ST.    CYPRIAN.  I99 

De  laude  martyrii,  a  bombastic  sermon  in  praise  of  martyrdom, 
reminding  one  of  Vergil  rather  than  of  Holy  Writ,  must  be  looked  on 
as  spurious,  if  only  because  of  its  style.  Nevertheless,  it  figures  among 
the  works  of  Cyprian  in  the  Catalogue  of  359.  Harnack's  ascription 
of  the  authorship  to  Novatian  has  been  refuted  by  Weyman. 
b)  Adversus  Judaeos,  also  a  sermon,  which  in  vigorous  rhetorical 
diction  exhorts  Israel  to  enter  into  itself  and  do  penance ;  it  is  likewise 
quoted  as  a  work  of  Cyprian  in  the  Catalogue  of  359.  It  was  formerly 
supposed  that  the  Latin  text  was  a  translation  from  the  Greek,  but 
it  is  itself  the  original.  The  author  must  be  sought  for,  with  Harnack 
and  Landgraf,  among  the  friends  of  Novatian ;  possibly  it  was  written 
by  Novatian  himself,  c)  De  montibus  Sina  et  Sion,  written  in  popular 
Latin,  contains  some  obscure  remarks  on  the  relations  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments.  Harnack  refers  it  to  the  first  half  of  the  third 
century,  d)  De  spectaculis ,  against  the  frequentation  of  heathen 
plays  and  theatres,  is  based  on  the  homonymous  work  of  Tertullian. 
The  introduction  shows  that  it  was  written  by  a  bishop  living  at 
some  distance  from  his  flock.  Wölfflin  holds  it  to  be  a  genuine 
work  of  Cyprian;  Weymann  and  Demmler  maintain  that  it  belongs 
to  Novatian.  e)  De  bono  pudicitiae,  written  very  probably  by  the 
author  of  De  spectaculis,  is  a  spirited  elogium  of  chastity.  Matzinger 
failed  to  establish  the  authorship  of  Cyprian,  while  Weymann  and 
Demmler  argue  well  for  the  authorship  of  Novatian.  f)  Ad  Nova- 
tianum,  against  his  rigoristic  views;  internal  evidence  (c.  6)  shows 
that  it  was  written  shortly  after  the  persecution  of  Gallus  and  Volusian 
(251 — 253).  Harnack  maintains,  without  sufficient  proof,  that  it  is  from 
the  pen  of  Pope  Sixtus  II.  (257 — 258);  however,  there  is  not  sufficient 
evidence  to  show  even  that  it  was  written  in  Rome,  g)  De  aleatoribus, 
rather  Adversus  aleatores,  a  sermon  against  dice-playing  as  an  invention 
of  the  devil,  written  in  popular  unpolished  Latin  but  with  vigor  and 
boldness.  Harnack  believed  it  to  be  a  work  of  Pope  Victor  I.  (§  36,  1), 
and  therefore  «the  oldest  Christian  work  in  Latin».  It  was  soon 
observed,  however,  that  the  author  knew  and  used  writings  of  Cyprian, 
especially  Ad  Quirinum.  In  the  introductory  phrases  (c.  1)  the  author 
does  not  call  himself  pope,  but  rather  only  a  bishop,  and  there  is  no 
positive  proof  that  he  occupied  an  Italian  see.  h)  De  rebaptismate  is 
a  polemical  work  in  favor  of  the  validity  of  heretical  baptism  and 
against  the  theory  and  practice  of  Cyprian.  The  author  was  a  bishop, 
gifted  with  a  taste  for  speculation;  possibly  his  name  was  Ursinus1. 
In  his  excellent  researches,  Ernst  has  shown  that  it  was  composed 
in  Africa,  very  probably  in  Mauritania,  and  in  256,  a  little  before 
the  Synod  of  September  1.  of  this  year.  Schüler  also  agrees  that  it 
was  composed  in   that   year,    but   in  Italy,    he  thinks,    and  after  the 

1   Gennad,  De  viris  ill.,  c.   27. 


200  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

synod  just  mentioned.  Nelke  inclines  to  a  date  between  255  and  258, 
probably  the  earlier  figure,  i)  De  pascha  computus.  In  Hufmayr's 
opinion  it  was  written  in  the  fifth  year  of  Gordian,  before  the  Easter 
of  243  (c.  22),  for  the  purpose  of  correcting  the  sixteen-year  paschal 
cycle  of  Hippolytus  (§  54,  6),  by  a  cleric  resident  outside  of  Rome, 

a)  A.  Harnack ,  Eine  bisher  nicht  erkannte  Schrift  Novatians  vom 
Jahre  249 — 250  («Cyprian»,  De  laude  martyrii),  in  Texte  u.  Untersuchungen, 
Leipzig,  1895,  xiii.  4b;  cf.,  against  Harnack,  C.  Weyman,  in  Lit.  Rund- 
schau (1895),  pp.  331 — 33$.  —  b)  G.  Landgraf,  Über  den  pseudo-cypria- 
nischen  Traktat  «Adversus  Iudaeos»,  in  Archiv  für  latein.  Lexikographie 
und  Grammatik  (1898),  xi.  87 — 97;  cf.  Harnack,  in  Texte  und  Unter- 
suchungen, xx,  new  series  (1900)  v.  3,  126 — 135.  —  c)  For  De  montibus 
Sina  et  Sion  see  Harnack,  ib.,  135 — 147.  —  d)  and  e)  Ed.  Wölfflin,  Cyprianus 
de  spectaculis,  in  Archiv  für  latein.  Lexikographie  und  Grammatik  (1892), 
vii.  1 — 22.  S.  Matzinger,  Des  hl.  Thascius  Caecilius  Cyprianus  Traktat 
De  bono  pudicitiae  (Inaug.-Diss.),  Nürnberg,  1892.  Against  Wölfflin  and 
Matzinger  oi.  Weyman,  in  Histor.  Jahrb.  (1892),  xiii.  737 — 748;  (1893),  xiv. 
330  f.,  and  A.  Dcnutiler,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1894),  lxxvi.  223 — 271. 
—  f)  A.  Harnack,  Eine  bisher  nicht  erkannte  Schrift  des  Papstes  Sixtus  II. 
vom  Jahre  257/8,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  Leipzig,  1895,  xiii  i,  1 
to  70;  cf.  ib.,  xx,  new  series  (1900),  v  3,  116 — 126.  Against  Harnack 
see  Jülicher,  in  Theol.  Literaturzeitung  (1896),  pp.  19 — 22;  Funk,  in  Theol. 
Quartalschr.  (1896),  lxxviii.  691 — 693;  Benson,  Cyprian,  London,  1897,  pp.  557 
to  564.  According  to  A.  Rombold,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1900),  lxxxii. 
546—601,  Ad  Novatianum  was  written  by  Cyprian  in  255  or  256.  L.  Nelke 
maintains  (see  no.  5  of  this  §)  that  very  probably  Pope  Cornelius  was  its 
author  and  wrote  it  about  252.  —  g)  New  separate  editions  of  Adv. 
aleatores  were  published  by  A.  Miodonski,  Erlangen  and  Leipzig,  1889 
(with  a  German  version),  and  by  A.  Hilge?ifeld,  Freiburg,  1889.  A.  Harnack, 
Der  pseudo-cyprianische  Traktat  De  aleatoribus  etc.,  in  Texte  und  Unter- 
suchungen, Leipzig,  1888,  v.  1;  cf.  ib.,  xx,  new  series  (1900),  v  3,  112 
to  116.  Against  Harnack  see  Funk,  in  Histor.  Jahrb.  (1889),  x.  1 — 22, 
and  Kirchengeschichtl.  Abhandlungen  und  Untersuchungen  (1899),  ii.  209 
to  236;  Haussleiter,  in  Theol.  Literaturblatt  (1889),  pp.  41 — 43,  49 — 51, 
and  in  Commentationes  Woelfflinianae,  Leipzig,  1891,  pp.  386 — 389;  Etude 
critique  sur  l'opuscule  «De  aleatoribus»  par  les  membres  du  seminaire 
d'histoire  ecclesiastique  etabli  ä  l'Universite  Catholique  de  Louvain,  Louvain, 
1 89 1,  with  appendix:  Une  lettre  perdue  de  Saint  Paul  et  le  «De  aleatori- 
bus», Louvain,  1893.  —  h)  For  De  rebaptis?nate  see  J.  Ernst,  in  Zeitschr. 
für  kathol.  Theol.  (1896),  xx.  193 — 255  360 — 362;  (1898),  xxii.  179 — 180; 
(1900),  xxiv.  425 — 462;  also  in  Histor.  Jahrb.  (1898),  xix.  499—522  737 
to  771.  Cf.  W.  Schüler,  in  Zeitschr.  für  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1897),  xl. 
555—608;  A.  Beck,  in  «Katholik»  (1900),  i.  40—64.  Id.,  Kirchl.  Studien 
und  Quellen,  Hamburg,  1903,  pp.  1 — 58,  makes  Sixtus  II.  author  of  De  re- 
baptismate,  but  doubts  somewhat  the  genuineness  of  cc.  16 — 18.  —  i)  E.  Huf 
mayr,  Die  pseudo-cyprianische  Schrift  «De  pascha  computus»  (Progr.),  Augs- 
burg,  1896. 

Many  other  pseudo-cyprianic  works  were  written  after  the  time  of 
Constantine.  For  Ad  Vigilium  episcopum  de  iudaica  incredulitaie  see  §  16. 
The  De  duodecim  abusivis  saeculi  (ed.  Hartel,  iii.  152 — 173)  still  awaits  an 
investigator  of  its  literary  history.  The  De  singularitate  clericorum  [Hartel,  iii. 
173 — 220)  is  identical  (according  to  Dom  Morin,  in  the  Revue  Benedictine 
[1891],  viii.  236  f.)  with  the  Ad  confessor  es  et  virgines  of  the  priest  Macrobius, 


§    5 2-      ARNOBIUS.  201 

and  was  written  about  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century  (Gennad.,  De  vir.  ill., 
c.  5).  A.  Harnack,  Der  pseudocyprianische  Traktat  De  singularitate  cleri- 
corum,  ein  Werk  des  donatistischen  Bischofs  Macrobius  in  Rom,  in  Texte 
und  Untersuchungen,  new  series,  Leipzig,  1903,  ix.  3,  accepts  and  con- 
firms the  thesis  of  Dom  Morin.  The  De  duplici  martyrio  ad  Fortunatum 
(Hartel,  iii.  220 — 247)  was  unmasked  by  Fr.  Lezius,  in  Neue  Jahrb.  für  deutsche 
Theol.  (1895),  iv.  95 — 110  184 — 243,  and  shown  to  be  a  daring  forgery  of 
its  first  editor,  Erasmus.  —  For  the  poems,  current  also  under  the  name 
of  Tertullian,  De  Genesi,  De  Sodoma  and  De  Jona,  also  for  Ad  Flavium 
Felice  m  de  resurrectione  mortuorum  cf.  §  50,  8  \  for  the  poem  Ad  senator  em 
§  88,  7;  for  De  pascha  §  87,  8.  The  Exhortatio  de  paenitentia ,  lacking 
in  Hartel's  edition,  and  recently  edited  by  A.  Miodonski  (Cracow,  1893) 
is  a  collection  of  scriptural  texts  made  for  the  purpose  of  refuting  the 
rigorism  of  Novatian,  and  dates,  according  to  C.  Wunderer,  Bruchstücke 
einer  afrikanischen  Bibelübersetzung  in  der  pseudo-cyprianischen  Schrift 
«Exhort,  de  paenit.»  (Progr. ,  Erlangen,  1889),  from  about  the  year  400. 
For  other  apocryphal  works,  lacking  in  Hartel ,  cf.  Harnack,  Gesch.  der 
altchristl.  Literatur,  i.  722  f.  The  Caena  Cypriani  (cf.  §  30,  5)  and  two  Or  a- 
tiones  [Hartel,  iii.  144 — 151)  are  located  by  Harnack  about  the  beginning 
of  the  fifth  century,  and  attributed  to  Cyprianus  Gallus  (§  88,  2),  in  Texte 
und  Untersuchungen,  xix  new  series  (1899),  iv.  3  b.  Michel,  Gebet  und  Bild, 
Leipzig,  1902,  pp.  77  ff.,  differs  from  Harnack.  —  On  all  the  works  in  the 
Appendix  to  Cyprian  cf.  P.  Monceaux,  Etudes  critiques  sur  l'appendice  de 
St.  Cyprien,  in  Revue  de  Philol.  (1902),  xxxvi.  63 — 98,  and  also  his  Cyprien 
in  1  of  this  §. 

§  52.    Arnobius. 

St.  Jerome  remarks1  that  his  name  suggests  a  Greek  origin.  He 
flourished  in  the  reign  of  Diocletian  (284 — 305)  at  Sicca  in  Africa 
Proconsularis,  where  he  was  known  as  a  distinguished  professor  of 
rhetoric.  By  a  dream  (somniis)  he  was  led  to  become  a  Christian. 
In  order  to  overcome  the  diffidence  of  the  bishop  to  whom  he  applied 
for  reception  into  the  Christian  community,  he  published  a  polemical 
work  against  heathenism  which  Jerome  calls 2  Adver sus  gentes,  but  in 
the  only  (ninth-century)  manuscript  that  has  reached  us  is  entitled 
Adversus  nationes.  Internal  evidence  shows  that  it  was  composed 
during  the  persecution  of  Diocletian  (303 — 305)  or  shortly  afterwards 
(cf.  i.  13;  ii.  5 ;  iv.  36).  The  contents  of  the  work  fall  into  two 
parts :  the  first  two  books  are  mostly  taken  up  with  an  apology  for 
Christianity,  while  the  other  five  are  a  polemical  attack  on  heathenism. 
In  the  first  part  he  refutes  the  trite  accusation  that  the  Christians 
are  responsible  for  the  actual  evils  of  the  time  because  they  had 
roused  the  anger  of  the  gods.  The  religious  spirit  of  the  Christians 
is  guaranteed  by  their  faith  in  a  chief  and  supreme  God  (Deus  prin- 
ceps,  Deus  summus)  and  in  Christ  who  died  on  the  Cross  as  man, 
but  by  His  miracles  proved  Himself  to  be  God.  That  the  Christian 
religion  is  the  true  one  is  proved  by  its  rapid  spread,  by  its  influence 
on  the  manners  of  barbarian  peoples,   and  by  its  harmony  with  the 

1  Chron.  ad  a.  Abr.  2343  =  A.  D.  327.  -  De  viris  ill.,  c.   79. 


202  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

opinions  of  the  greatest  philosophers.  The  mention  of  Plato,  as  in 
many  things  a  herald  of  Christian  truth,  furnishes  the  occasion  for  a 
long  and  remarkable  excursus  on  the  soul  (ii.  14 — 62).  Passing  thence 
to  his  polemic  against  heathenism,  he  undertakes  to  show  that  the 
heathen  teaching  concerning  the  divinity  is  both  contradictory  and 
immoral  (iii — v).  In  the  sixth  book  he  describes  with  caustic 
severity  the  forms  of  heathen  worship,  the  temples  and  the  statues ; 
in  the  seventh  book  he  treats  of  the  sacrificial  rites  and  ceremonies. 
(The  latter  book  seems  really  to  close  with  c.  37.  The  following 
chapters  38 — 51  are  apparently  sketches  for  some  new  work  against 
heathenism.)  The  work  of  Arnobius  did  not  meet  with  warm  ad- 
miration in  later  Christian  times.  The  declamatory  pathos  of  the  old 
rhetorician,  his  affected  and  involved  phraseology,  the  multiplicity  of 
interrogations,  become  at  length  very  wearisome  to  the  reader  *,  all  the 
more  so  as  in  Arnobius  warmth  of  conviction  and  clearness  of  thought 
are  not  prominent.  He  seems  to  have  hastily  put  together  his  apology 
for  Christianity  before  he  had  got  rid  of  remnants  of  heathenism. 
His  religious  opinions  offer  a  curious  mixture  of  Christian  and  heathen 
ideas:  Christ  is  not  equal  to  the  Deus  summus.  In  the  supposition 
that  the  heathen  gods  really  exist,  they  must  be  gods  of  a  second 
order,  owing  their  existence  and  divine  character  to  the  God  of  the 
Christians,  to  whose  family  they  in  a  sense  belong  (i.  28 ;  iii.  2 — 3  ; 
vii.  35).  The  human  soul  is  not  the  work  of  God,  but  of  some  other 
celestial  being.  It  is  something  half  divine  and  half  material  (mediae 
qualitatis,  anceps  ambiguaque  natura),  in  itself  perishable,  but  capable 
by  the  grace  of  God  of  receiving  an  imperishable  character  (ii.  14  fr.). 
He  draws  from  the  didactic  poem  of  Lucretius  (De  rerum  natura) 
his  arguments  against  an  absolute  eternity,  and  from  the  Platonists 
and  Neoplatonists  his  arguments  against  the  annihilation  of  the  soul. 
The  second  part  of  the  work,  especially  books  iii — v,  has  always  at- 
tracted the  attention  of  philologists  because  of  its  very  copious  mytho- 
logical information.  He  appears  to  have  studied  the  Roman  mythology 
in  the  (lost)  works  of  the  Neoplatonist  Cornelius  Labeo,  and  Greek 
mythology  in   the  Protrepticus   of  Clement   of  Alexandria  (§  38,   3). 

The  text  of  Arnobius  is  based  exclusively  on  Cod.  Paris.  1661,  of  the 
ninth  century;  cf.  §  24,  1.  The  Editio  princeps  is  that  of  F.  Sabaeus, 
Rome,  1543.  For  later  editions  cf.  Schoenemann,  Bibliotheca  historico- 
literaria  Patrum  Latinorum,  i.  160 — 175.  New  editions  or  reprints  were 
brought  out  by  J.  C.  Orelli,  3  vols.,  Leipzig,  1816 — 1817;  Migne ,  PL., 
Paris,  1844,  v;  G.  F.  Hildebrand,  Halle,  1844;  Fr.  Oehler,  Leipzig,  1846 
(Gersdorf,  Bibl.  Patr.  eccles.  Lat.  sei.,  xii).  The  best  is  that  of  A.  Reiff erscheid, 
Vienna,  1875  (Corpus  script,  eccl.  Lat.,  iv).  Cf.  Id.,  in  Indices  scholarum 
Vratislav.  1877 — 1878,  pp.  9—10;  1879  — 1880,  PP-  8—10.  M.  Bastgen, 
Quaestiones  de  locis  ex  Arnobii  Adv.  nat.  opere  selectis  (Dissert,  inaug.), 
Münster,    1887.  —  German   versions    of  Arnobius   were   made   by  Fr.  A. 

1  Hier.,  Ep.  58,  10. 


§    53-      LACTANTIUS.  203 

v.  Besnard,  Landshut,  1842  ;  J.  Alleker,  Trier,  1858.  —  E.  Freppel,  Com- 
modien,  Arnobe,  Lactance,  Paris,  1893,  pp.  28  —  93.  On  the  diction  of 
Arnobius  see  C.  Stange,  De  Arnobii  oratione  (Progr.),  Saargemund,  1893; 
J.  Scharnagt,  De  Arnobii  maioris  latinitate  (2  Progr.),  Görz,  1894 — 1895, 
i — ii;  P.  Spindler,  De  Arnobii  genere  dicendi  (Dissert.),  Strassburg,  1901. 
—  For  the  «sources»  of  Arnobius  see  G.  Kettner,  Cornelius  Labeo  (Progr.), 
Naumburg,  1877  ;  A.  Röhricht ,  De  demente  Alex.  Arnobii  in  irridendo 
gentium  cultu  deorum  auctore  (Progr.),  Hamburg,  1893.  F.  Dal  Pane, 
Sopra  la  fönte  di  un  passo  (v.  18)  di  Arnobio,  in  Studi  Italiani  di  Filo- 
logia  Classica  (1901),  ix.  30.  —  For  the  doctrine  of  Arnobius  see  K.  B. 
Francke,  Die  Psychologie  und  Erkenntnislehre  des  Arnobius  (Inaug.-Diss.), 
Leipzig,  1878;  A.  Röhricht,  Die  Seelenlehre  des  Arnobius,  Hamburg,  1893; 
E.  F.  Schulze,  Das  Übel  in  der  Welt  nach  der  Lehre  des  Arnobius  (Inaug.- 
Diss.),  Jena,  1896;  E.  Vorontzow ,  Apologet  Arnobii  Afrikanei  (Russian), 
Kharkon  (1904),  ii.  319 — 338. 

§  53.     Lactantius. 

1.  HIS  LIFE.  — -  Lucius  Caelius  Firmianus  Lactantius,  for  such  was 
probably  his  full  name,  was,  according  to  St.  Jerome1,  a  disciple  of 
Arnobius,  and  unquestionably  a  native  of  Africa,  though  local 
Italian  patriotism,  without  any  evidence,  claims  the  honor  of  his  birth 
for  Firmum  (Fermo),  in  the  territory  of  Picenum.  His  parents  were 
heathens,  and  the  date  of  his  conversion  to  Christianity  is  unknown. 
It  is  probable  that  he  had  already  won  fame  in  Africa  as  a  rhetorician 
when  Diocletian  made  him  professor  of  Latin  rhetoric  at  Nicomedia, 
the  new  capital  of  the  empire.  The  persecution  of  Diocletian  com- 
pelled him  to  quit  this  office;  his  subsequent  life  was  probably  one 
of  much  privation.  At  an  advanced  age  he  appears  in  Gaul  as  the 
tutor  of  Crispus,  the  son  of  Constantine.  The  time  and  place  of  his 
death  are  unknown. 

S.  Brandt,  Über  die  dualistischen  Zusätze  und  die  Kaiseranreden  bei 
Lactantius.  Nebst  einer  Untersuchung  über  das  Leben  des  Lactantius  und 
die  Entstehungsverhältnisse  seiner  Prosaschriften  (four  Essays),  in  Sitzungs- 
berichte der  phil.-histor.  Klasse  der  kgl.  Akad.  der  Wissensch. ,  Vienna, 
1889— 189 1,  cxviii — cxxv;  cf.  T.  E.  Mecchi ,  Lattanzio  e  la  sua  patria, 
Fermo,  1875.  P-  Meyer,  Quaestionum  Lactantiarum  partic.  i.  (Progr.), 
Jülich,  1878.  R.  Pichon,  Lactance.  Etude  sur  le  mouvement  philosophique 
et  religieux  sous  le  regne  de  Constantin,  Paris,   1901. 

2.  HIS  LITERARY  LABORS.  —  Lactantius,  like  his  master  Arnobius, 
was  more  skilful  in  his  onslaught  upon  heathenism  than  in  his  defence 
of  Christianity.  Utinam,  says  Jerome  2,  tarn  nostra  affirmare  potuisset 
quam  facile  aliena  destruxit!  Withal,  he  accomplished  more  than 
Arnobius.  He  is  more  comprehensive  and  versatile  in  his  literary 
work,  while  his  style  is  more  chaste,  natural  and  pleasing  than  that 
of  any  of  his  contemporaries,  vir  omnium  suo  tempore  eloquentissimus, 
quasi  quidam  fluvius  eloquenliae   Tullianae 3.     The  humanists  called 

1  De  viris  ill.,   c.   80;   Chron.  ad  a.  Abr.   2333.  2  Ep.   58,    10. 

3  Hier.,   Chron.  ad  a.   Abr.   2333;   Ep.   58,    10. 


204  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

him  the  Christian  Cicero,  and  in  general  exhibited  an  exaggerated 
admiration  for  his  writings.  As  early  as  the  fifteenth  century  his 
writings,  extant  in  numerous  and  ancient  codices,  went  through  a 
long  series  of  editions.  The  real  strength  of  Lactantius  is  in  his 
formal  grace  and  elegance  of  expression ;  like  his  heathen  model  he 
lacks  solidity  and  depth.  He  had  read  extensively,  and  retained  and 
assimilated  with  great  ease  the  learning  of  others,  which  he  reprodaced 
in  correct  and  polished  phraseology.  If  we  except  St.  Jerome,  and 
perhaps  St.  Augustine,  no  Christian  writer  of  antiquity  was  so  deeply 
versed  in  Latin  and  Greek  literature ;  but  conversely  his  knowledge  of 
ecclesiastical  literature,  and  still  more  so  of  the  Scripture,  was  equally 
meagre  and  imperfect.  St.  Jerome  accuses  him  of  downright  imperitia 
scripturarum,  for  failing  to  recognize  a  third  person  in  the  Divinity, 
or  the  personal  distinction  between  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  Father 
and  the  Son  *.  He  leaned  towards  Chiliasm 2,  and  his  entire  doctrinal 
and  ethical  teaching  is  suffused  with  a  peculiar  dualism,  best  formu- 
lated in  his  thesis  that  evil  is  of  necessity  presupposed  to  good3. 

The  manuscript-tradition  of  the  works  of  Lactantius  is  the  subject  of 
an  exhaustive  study  by  Brandt  in  the  prolegomena  of  his  edition.  The 
oldest  manuscripts  are  a  Cod.  Bononiensis  of  the  sixth  or  seventh  cen- 
tury (Div.  inst.,  De  ira  Dei,  De  opif.  Dei,  Epitome  div.  inst.)  and  a 
Cod.  Sangallensis  rescriptus  of  the  sixth  or  seventh  century  (Div.  inst.). 
The  editio  princeps  appeared  at  Subiaco  in  1465 ,  it  is  the  first  dated 
book  printed  in  Italy.  During  the  eighteenth  century  appeared  the  com- 
plete editions  of  Chr.  A.  Heumann ,  Göttingen,  1736;  J.  L.  Buenemann, 
Leipzig,  1739;  J.  B.  Le  Brun  and  N.  Lenglet  du  Fresnoy,  2  vols.,  Paris, 
1748-,  F.  Eduardus  a  S.  Xaverio,  11  vols.,  Rome,  1754 — 1759.  The  edition 
of  Le  Brun  and  du  Fresnoy  is  reprinted  in  Migne ,  PL.,  Paris,  1844,  vi 
to  vii).  Brandt  was  the  first  to  make  a  comprehensive  and  critical  use 
of  the  extant  manuscripts:  L.  C.  F.  Lactanti  opera  omnia,  rec.  S.  Bra?idt 
et  G.  Laubmann,  2  vols.,  Vienna,  1890 — 1897  (Corpus  script,  eccles.  Lat. 
xix  xxvii).  —  P.  Bertold ,  Prolegomena  zu  Lactantius  (Progr.),  Metten, 
1 86 1.  Freppel,  Commodien,  Arnobe,  Lactance,  Paris,  1893,  pp.  94 — 148. 
—  LL.  Limberg,  Quo  iure  Lactantius  appellatur  Cicero  christianus  ?  (Dissert, 
inaug.),  Münster,  1896.  IL.  Glaesener,  Several  grammatical  and  philological 
articles,  in  Musee  Beige  (1901),  v.  5 — 27.  S.  Brandt,  Lactantius  und  Lu- 
cretius, in  Neue  Jahrb.  für  Philol.  und  Pädag.  (1891),  cxliii.  225 — 259. 
P.  G.  Frotscher,  Des  Apologeten  Lactantius  Verhältnis  zur  griechischen 
Philosophie  (Inaug.-Diss.),  Leipzig,  1895.  —  E.  Overlach ,  Die  Theologie 
des  Lactantius  (Progr.),  Schwerin,  1858.  M.  E.  Heinig,  Die  Ethik  des  Lac- 
tantius (Inaug.-Diss.),  Grimma,  1887.  Fr.  Marbach ,  Die  Psychologie  des 
Firmianus  Lactantius  (Inaug.-Diss.),  Halle,   1889. 

3.  DIVIN AE  INSTITUTIONES.  —  His  most  important  work  is  a 
series  of  religious  instructions  in  seven  books,  Divinarum  institutio- 
mim  libri  VII,  at  once  an  apology  and  a  manual  of  theology.  The 
purpose   of  the   author   is   first  to   put   to  silence    all  the   opponents 

1  Comm.  in  Gal.   ad  iv.   6;  Ep.   84,    7.  -  Div.   inst.,  vii.    14  ff. 

3  Cf.  De  ira  Dei,   c.    15. 


§    53-      LACTANTIUS.  20$ 

of  the  Christian  faith.  Proceeding  then  from  the  negative  to  the  af- 
firmative, he  undertakes  to  describe  «the  whole  contents  of  the  Chris- 
tian doctrine»  (v.  4).  The  title  itself  is  instructive;  he  borrowed 
it  from  the  current  manuals  of  legal  science1.  The  first  two  books, 
De  falsa  religione  and  De  origine  err  oris ,  are  devoted  to  the 
refutation  of  the  superstitions  of  polytheism  and  to  the  demonstra- 
tion of  monotheism  as  the  only  true  religion.  The  third  book, 
De  falsa  sapientia,  attacks  the  philosophy  of  the  heathen,  as  being, 
next  to  their  false  religion,  the  source  of  their  errors.  From  the 
mutually  destructive  systems  of  philosophy  one  turns  with  satisfaction 
to  God's  revelation  of  Himself,  which  concept  furnishes  the  transit 
to  the  fourth  book,  De  vera  sapientia  et  religione.  True  wisdom 
consists  in  the  knowledge  and  worship  of  God;  these  have  been 
given  to  mankind  through  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  The  fifth  book, 
De  iustitia ,  treats  of  that  justice  to  which  men  return  through 
Christ.  Its  basis  is  that  piety  (pietas)  which  is  rooted  in  the  know- 
ledge of  God,  and  its  essence  is  that  equity  (aequitas)  which  sees 
in  all  men  children  of  God.  The  sixth  book,  De  veto  cultu,  goes 
to  show  that  in  the  exercise  of  this  justice  lies  the  true  worship  of 
God.  Hereupon  he  explains  the  two  essential  qualities  of  all  justice, 
religio  and  misericordia  vel  kumanitas.  In  the  seventh  book,  finally, 
he  crowns  his  work  with  a  description  of  heaven  (De  vita  beata), 
the  reward  of  all  true  worship  of  God.  Lactantius  is  the  first  among 
the  Western  Christians  to  exhibit  in  a  connected  system  the  Chris- 
tian views  of  life  and  man.  He  knows  and  uses  the  works  of 
earlier  apologists  such  as  Minucius  Felix,  Tertullian,  Cyprian  and 
Theophilus  of  Antioch.  He  quotes  the  Scripture  occasionally  from 
St.  Cyprian's  so-called  Testimonia  adversus  Iudaeos ,  but  abounds 
still  more  in  quotations  from  classic  authors.  This  work  was  written 
during  the  persecution  of  Diocletian  and  Galerius  (305 — 310)  in  part 
at  Nicomedia  and  in  part  elsewhere  (v.  2,  2 ;  11,  15).  The  so-called 
dualistic  phrases  found  in  some  manuscripts,  to  the  effect  that  God 
willed  and  created  evil  (ii.  8,  6;  vii.  5,  27)2  are  interpolations,  but 
according  to  Brandt  inserted  as  early  as  the  fourth  century.  Brandt 
attributes  to  this  interpolator  certain  more  or  less  lengthy  discourses 
to  Constantine,  that  are  found  in  the  same  manuscripts  (i.  1,  12;  vii. 
27,  2  etc.);  others  hold  them  to  be  genuine  elements  of  a  second 
edition  of  the  work. 

Brandt,  Über  die  dualistischen  Zusätze  und  die  Kaiseranreden  (see 
§  53,  1).  In  favor  of  the  genuineness  of  the  dualistic  additions  see  J.  G.  Th. 
Midler,  Quaestiones  Lactantianae  (Dissert,  inaug.),  Göttingen,  1875,  and  of 
the  discourses  to  Constantine  J.  Belser,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1898),  lxxx. 
548 — 588.  —  For  the  Scriptural  quotations  see  the  edition  of  Brandt,  1.  c. 
(1890),  i.  xcvii  rl.  The  date  of  composition  is  discussed  by  Lobmüller, 
in  «Katholik»   (1898),  ii.   1 — 23. 

1  Institutiones  civilis  iuris,   i.    1,    12.  2  Cf.   De  opificio  Dei,  c.   19,  8. 


206  FIRST    PERIOD.      FIFTH    SECTION. 

4.  EPITOME  DIV.  INST.  DE  OPIFICIO  DEI.  DE  IRA  DEI.  —  At 
the   request   of  a  certain  Pentadius,    whom  he  addresses  as  Pentadi 

f rater,  Lactantius  prepared ,  about  315,  a  summary  of  his  large 
work  and  entitled  it  Epitome  divinarum  instiüttionum.  It  is  really 
a  new,  but  abbreviated  recension  of  the  work.  The  suspicions  oc- 
casionally manifested  concerning  its  genuineness  are  nowise  justified. 
In  the  treatise  De  opificio  Dei,  addressed  to  Demetrianus,  a  former 
disciple,  and  written  before  the  Institutiones  (about  304 ;  cf.  c.  6,  15; 
15,  6;  20),  Lactantius  maintains  against  the  Epicureans,  that  the 
human  organism  is  a  «creation  of  God»,  a  work  of  Providence. 
After  an  anatomical  and  physiological  description  of  the  human  body 
and  a  teleological  commentary  on  its  constitution  (cc.  5 — 13),  he  dis- 
cusses in  the  second  part  some  psychological  questions  (cc.  16 — 19); 
the  dualistic  addition  in  c.  19,  8  are  discussed  above  (§53,  3). 
Brandt  is  of  opinion  that  Lactantius  composed  the  first  part  of  this 
work  on  the  basis  of  some  Hermetic  book.  The  treatise  De  ira 
Dei,  addressed  to  a  certain  Donatus,  and  written  after  the  Institu- 
tiones (c.  2,  4  6;  11,  2)  i  is  directed  against  the  Epicurean  doctrine 
of  the  absolute  indifference  (apathia)  of  the  divinity;  from  the  very 
nature  of  religion  Lactantius  deduces  the  necessity  of  a  divine  wrath. 

The  Epitome  was  translated  into  German  by  P.  H.  Jansen,  Kempten, 
1875  (Bibl.  der  Kirchenväter);  the  De  ira  Dei  by  R.  Storf ,  ib.;  the  De 
opificio  Dei  by  A.  Knappitsch ,  Graz,  1898.  For  the  sources  of  the  De 
opif.  Dei  cf.  Brandt,  Wiener  Studien  (1891),  xiii.  255  —  292. 

5.  DE  MORTIBUS  PERSECUTORUM.  —  In  this  work  are  narrated  the 
wretched  deaths  of  the  imperial  persecutors  of  the  Christians ;  indeed, 
its  purpose  is  to  show  that  the  God  of  the  Christians  has  truly 
manifested  his  power  and  greatness  against  the  enemies  of  His  name 
(c.  1,  7).  In  the  introduction  it  treats  briefly  of  Nero,  Domitian,  Decius, 
Valerian,  and  Aurelian.  The  closing  days  of  Diocletian,  Maximian, 
Galerius,  Severus  and  Maximinus  are  described  with  greater  fulness. 
The  narrator  writes  from  personal  experience ;  in  the  years  3 1 1  and 
313  he  was  resident  in  Nicomedia  (cc.  35  48;  cf.  c.  1),  where  the 
book  was  probably  written  in  314.  The  entire  story  breathes  an 
atmosphere  of  vivid  personal  impressions  received  during  those  days 
of  horror ;  it  has  not  yet  been  proved  that  the  narrator  has  any- 
where consciously  perverted  the  truth  of  history.  Only  one  (eleventh 
century)  manuscript  of  the  work  has  reached  us.  It  is  entitled: 
Lucii  Caecilii  liber  ad  Donatum  confessorem  de  mort.  persec.  In 
many  manuscripts  Lactantius  is  called  Lucius  Caelius  or  Lucius  Cae- 
cilius,  and  we  have  seen  already  that  he  dedicated  his  treatise  De 
ira  Dei  to  a  certain  Donatus.  According  to  Jerome2,  Lactantius 
left  a  work  De  persecutione  which  universal  consent  identifies  with  the 

1  Cf.  Div.  inst.,  ii.    17,   5.  2  De  viris  ill.,   c.  80. 


§    53-      LACTANTIUS.  207 

De  mortibus  persecutorum.  Finally  there  is  a  minute  correspondence 
of  style  and  diction  between  this  work  and  the  other  writings  of 
Lactantius.  Its  fundamental  concept  appears  also  in  the  Institutiones 
(v.  23).  Even  the  peculiar  features  of  the  work,  its  irritated  senti- 
ment and  impassioned  tone  are  easily  understood  from  the  nature  of 
the  subject-matter.  The  most  recent  editor,  Brandt,  stands  almost 
alone  in  maintaining  that  Lactantius  is  not  the  author  of  the  De 
mortibus  persecutorum.  There  is  no  solid  basis,  however,  for  his 
hypothesis  that  Lactantius  spent  the  time  from  311   to  313  in  Gaul. 

This  work  was  first  edited  by  Stephen  Baluze,  Paris,  1679  i  f°r  new  separate 
editions  we  are  indebted  to  Fr.  Diifoier,  Paris,  1863,  1879;  Brandt t  Vienna, 
1897.  It  is  reprinted  in  Hurter,  SS.  Patr.  opusc.  sei.,  Innsbruck,  1873, 
xxii.  It  was  translated  into  German  by  P.  H.  Jansen,  Kempten,  1875 
(Bibl.  der  Kirchenväter).  The  question  of  authorship  is  discussed  by  Ad. 
Ebert,  in  Berichte  über  die  Verhandlungen  der  kgl.  sächs.  Gesellsch.  der 
Wissensch. ,  Leipzig,  1870,  xxii.  115 — 138  (for  Lactantius);  Brandt,  Über 
die  Entstehungsverhältnisse  der  Prosaschriften  des  Lactantius  (see  §  53,  1) 
pp.  22 — 122  and  in  Neue  Jahrb.  für  Philol.  und  Pädag.  (1893),  cxlvii. 
121 — 138  203 — 223  (against  Lactantius);  J.  Belser,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr. 
(1892),  lxxiv.  246 — 293  439 — 464;  (1898),  lxxx.  547 — 596  (for  Lactantius); 
O.  Seeck,  Gesch.  des  Untergangs  der  antiken  Welt,  Berlin,  1895,  *■  42^ — 43° 
(for  Lactantius).  —  J.  Rothfuchs,  Qua  historiae  fide  Lactantius  usus  sit  in 
libroDe  mort.  persec.  (Progr.),  Marburg,  1862.  Belser,  Grammatisch-kritische 
Erklärung  von  Lactantius'  «De  mort.  persec.»  c.  34  (Progr.),  Ellwangen, 
1889.  For  minor  articles  of  A.  Crivellucci ,  A.  Mancini  and  Brandt  see 
Soldi  Storici  (1893),  ii.  45— 48  374— 388  444—464;  (1894),  iii.  65—70; 
(1896),  v.  555 — 571.  J.  Kopp,  Über  den  Verfasser  des  Buches  «De  morti- 
bus persecutorum»  (Dissert.),  Munich,   1902  (for  Lactantius). 

6.  DE  AVE  PHOENICE.  SPURIOUS  POEMS.  —  The  poem  De  ave 
Phoenice  relates  in  eighty-five  distichs  the  myth  of  the  miraculous 
bird  that  dwelt  in  the  sacred  grove  of  the  Sun-God  as  his  priest, 
whence  every  thousand  years  it  came  on  earth  to  mount  its  own 
funeral  pyre,  and  from  its  own  ashes  rose  to  a  new  life.  There  is 
a  long  series  of  witnesses,  beginning  with  Gregory  of  Tours l,  for  the 
authorship  of  Lactantius ;  most  modern  critics  admit  it,  even  Brandt, 
though  he  ascribes  it  not  to  the  Christian  but  to  the  heathen  period 
of  his  life.  Nevertheless,  the  work  has  a  specific  Christian  color, 
and  both  in  matter  and  style  exhibits  many  Christian  peculiarities. 
The  Phoenix  was  looked  on  as  a  symbol  of  the  resurrection.  The 
poem  De  resurrectione  (De  pascha)  is  not  a  work  of  Lactantius, 
but  rather  of  Venantius  Fortunatus  2.  The  poem  De  passione  Domini 
belongs  to  the  end  'of  the  fifteenth  century. 

De  ave  Phocnice  in  Brandt's  edition  (1893),  ii.  1,  135—147;  cf-  xvni 
to  xxii.  On  the  origin  of  the  myth  see  H.  Dechent ,  in  Rhein.  Mus.  für 
Philol.,  new  series  (1880),  xxxv.  39—55;  ■#•  Loebe,  in  Jahrb.  für  protest. 
Theol.  (1892),  xviii.  34—65;  Brandt,  in  Rhein.  Mus.  für  Philol.,  new  series 

1  De  cursu  stellarum,   c.    12.  2  Carm.,  iii.  9. 


208  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

(1892),  xlvii.  390 — 403;  A.  Knappitsch,  De  L.  C.  F.  Lactanti  «ave  Phoe- 
nice»  (Progr.),  Graz,  1896  (with  a  German  metrical  version).  The  De 
passione  Domini  is  in  Brandt,  1.  c.,  pp.  148 — 151;  cf.  xxii — xxxiii.  C.  Pas- 
cal, Sul  carme  «De  ave  Phoenice»  attribute  a  Lattanzio,  Napole,  1904. 
For  a  collection  of  metrical  enigmas  see  below  §  53,  7  a. 

7.  LOST  WRITINGS.  FRAGMENTS.  —  Lactantius  intended  to  pu- 
blish a  work  against  all  heresies1,  and  another  against  the  Jews2, 
but  he  seems  not  to  have  carried  out  his  purpose.  Several  other  works 
have  perished :  a)  Symposium  quod  adolescentulus  scripsit  Africae 3, 
perhaps  a  discussion  of  grammatical  or  rhetorical  questions  in  the 
form  of  a  banquet-dialogue.  The  title  of  Symposium  may  have  been 
the  occasion  for  attributing  to  him  one  hundred  metrical  enigmas, 
each  in  three  hexameters,  that  are  otherwise  adjudged  to  a  certain 
Symphosius;  b)  Hodoeporicum  (odonzopixov)  Africa  usque  Nicomediam 
he xametris  scriptum  v er sibus^;  c)  Grammaticusb;  d)  Ad  Asclepiadem 
lib?-i  duo6;  the  recipient  is  probably  identical  with  the  homonymous 
author  of  a  work  addressed  to  Lactantius ,  De  Providentia  summi 
Dei1 ;  e)  Ad  Probum  epistolarum  libri  quattuor^.  This  is  perhaps 
the  collection  of  letters  to  which  pope  Damasus  refers  when  he  tells 
us9  that  Lactantius  wrote  letters  in  which  he  dealt  mostly  with 
metre,  geography  and  philosophy,  but  rarely  touched  on  matters  of 
Christian  theology;  f)  Ad  Severum  epistolarum  libri  duo10;  g)  Ad 
Demetrianum  (§  53,  4)  auditor  em  suum  epistolarum  libri  duo11.  The 
letters  treated  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  of  other  subjects  (cf.  §  53,  2). 
h)  In  a  codex  of  the  eighth  or  ninth  century  there  is  a  fragment  on 
divers  passions  —  hope,  fear,  love,  hatred  etc.  —  with  the  marginal 
note  Lactantius  de  motibus  animi.  It  may  be  genuine,  but  cannot 
be  definitely  assigned  to  any  of  his  writings. 

The  collection  of  metrical  enigmas  is  in  Migne ,  PL.,  vii.  289 — 298. 
It  is  not  in  the  edition  of  Brandt;  cf.  Teuffel-Schwabe ,  Gesch.  der  röm. 
Literatur,  5.  ed.,  pp.  1152  f.  For  the  other  works  mentioned  see  the 
quotations  and  fragments  in  Brandt,  1.  c.  (1893),  ii.  1,  155  —  160,  with  the 
pertinent  literature. 

B.    ROMAN  WRITERS. 

§  54.    Hippolytus. 

I.  His  LIFE.  —  The  authorship  of  the  «Refutation  of  all  Heresies», 
xaza  Ttaocbv  alpeoecov  eXeyyoq,  or  Philosophumena  (see  §  54,  3),  a  large 
and  important  work  discovered  in  185 1,  awakened  much  interest  at 
the  time.  Since  then  the  authorship  of  the  work  has  been  extensively, 
but  so  far  inconclusively,  discussed.     The  first  of  its  ten  books  was 

1  Div.  inst.,  iv.  30,    14;  De  ira  DeL   c.  2,  6.              2  Div.   inst.,  vii.   I,   26. 

3  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  80.  4  Ib.              5  Ib.              6  lb. 

7  Div.  inst.,  vii.  4,   17.  »  Hier.,  1.  c.              9  Hier.,  Ep.   35,   2. 

10  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  80;  cf.  c.    in.               J1  lb. 


§    54-      HIPPOLYTUS.  209 

long  current  under  the  name  of  Origen.  That  it  could  not  be  from 
his  pen  was  wellk-nown  from  the  title  of  bishop  (äp%iepazeia)  which 
the  author  gives  himself  in  the  preface,  that  being  an  office  that 
Origen  never  filled.  In  1842  Mynoides  Mynas  brought  to  Paris  from 
Mount  Athos  a  fourteenth-century  manuscript  containing  books  iv — x 
of  the  work.  They  were  edited  by  E.  Miller  in  185 1,  curiously  enough 
as  a  work  of  Origen.  The  second  and  third  books  are  still  lacking. 
The  authorship  of  Origen  was  at  once  rejected  on  all  sides  and  five 
other  possible  authors  suggested.  These  were  Hippolytus,  Beron, 
Cajus,  Novatian  and  Tertullian.  The  preponderance  of  opinion  was  in 
favor  of  Hippolytus,  for  whom  Dollinger  (1853)  and  Volkmar  (1855) 
pleaded  with  special  success.  It  was  easy  to  show  that  Beron, 
against  whom  Hippolytus  was  said  to  have  written  (xara  BrjpwvoQ), 
belonged  at  the  earliest  to  the  fourth  century,  nor  could  the  claims 
of  the  Anti-Montanist  Cajus  be  maintained  in  face  of  the  critical  argu- 
ments opposed  to  it.  In  the  course  of  the  controversy  the  names 
of  Novatian  and  Tertullian  were  gradually  abandoned.  In  a  general 
way  the  name  of  Hippolytus  stands  for  the  Philosophumena,  as  often 
as  it  becomes  necessary  to  refer  to  some  definite  person  as  author 
of  the  work.  It  is  true  that  this  work  is  not  mentioned  in  the  ancient 
catalogue  of  the  writings  of  Hippolytus  (§  54,  2.  But  other  writings 
claimed  as  his  by  the  author  in  the  preface  to  the  Philosophumena, 
e.  g.  the  so-called  Syntagma  (Philos.  prooem.),  the  Chronicon  (x.  30),  and 
the  work  on  the  nature  of  the  Universe  (x.  32),  are  otherwise  known  to 
be  works  of  Hippolytus.  There  is  also  a  striking  similarity  between  the 
Philosophumena  and  other  acknowledged  writings  of  Hippolytus,  e.  g. 
the  work  against  Noetus,  and  De  Antichristo.  Finally,  the  meagre 
and  contradictory  information  concerning  Hippolytus  that  antiquity 
has  bequeathed  us  is  placed  in  an  entirely  new  light  by  the  details 
furnished  in  the  Philosophumena  concerning  the  life  and  times  of  its 
author.  Not  only  are  the  known  facts  of  Hippolytus' s  life  notably 
increased,  but  the  former  accounts  of  him  are  rendered  now  for  the 
first  time  intelligible.  In  Western  tradition  Hippolytus  had  become  the 
centre  of  a  legendary  cycle,  through  the  mazes  of  which  it  was  difficult 
to  reach  the  kernel  of  historical  truth.  The  Philosophumena  put  an 
end  to  the  almost  unexampled  confusion  that  hitherto  had  surrounded 
his  person.  —  The  Oriental  tradition  was  right,  according  to  this 
work,  in  maintaining  that  Hippolytus,  a  disciple  of  St.  Irenaeus1, 
had  really  been  a  bishop  of  Rome.  He  was  the  rival  of  Pope  Cal- 
lixtus  (217 — 222),  the  head  of  a  schismatical  party,  and  therefore 
one  of  the  first  anti-popes  known  to  history.  It  is  true  that  our 
only  account  of  this  situation  comes  from  the  Philosophumena  itself 
(ix.   7   11    12),  but   we    cannot   therefore   accuse    its   author  of  a  de- 

1  Phot.,  Bibl.  Cod.    121. 
Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  14 


2IO  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

liberate  intention  to  calumniate  his  adversary.  Nevertheless,  we  must 
carefully  distinguish  between  the  facts  which  are  related  and  the  coloring 
that  the  narrative  puts  upon  them.  Callixtus  appears  in  ecclesiastical 
history  as  one  of  the  most  worthy  among  the  popes.  His  adversary 
was  a  subordinationist  in  doctrine,  and  in  church  discipline  he  held 
a  sectarian  rigorism.  Callixtus  had  softened  the  severe  penitential  dis- 
cipline by  permitting  those  guilty  of  adultery  or  of  fornication  to  be 
again  received  into  ecclesiastical  communion,  after  performance  of 
the  penance  enjoined1.  In  other  matters  also  he  had  shown  himself 
disposed  to  gentler  measures,  e.  g.  with  regard  to  the  reconciliation 
of  those  who  returned  from  heresy  or  schism,  the  treatment  of  un- 
worthy bishops,  the  advancement  of  bigamists  to  the  higher  ec- 
clesiastical offices,  and  the  like.  To  Hippolytus  all  this  savoured  of 
unprincipled  levity  (Philos.  ix.  12),  though  he  does  not  undertake  to 
justify  his  passionate  denunciation  of  it.  In  so  far  as  his  views  are 
not  the  result  of  personal  opposition  to  Callixtus,  they  can  only 
represent  an  erroneous  concept  of  the  nature  and  scope  of  ecclesiastical 
authority,  and  a  lack  of  sympathetic  intelligence  for  the  needs  of 
the  time  He  describes  himself  frequently  as  the  most  decided  ad- 
versary of  the  Patripassian  doctrine,  of  the  Novatians,  and  of  Sa- 
bellius.  But  his  own  theology  aroused  criticism,  and  was  declared  by 
Callixtus  a  pure  ditheism  (Philos.  ix.  12).  According  to  Hippolytus  the 
Logos  existed  first  impersonally  in  the  Father,  undistinguished  from 
Him  in  substance;  he  was  the  unspoken  word  of  the  Father,  XoyoQ 
evdidftsToq',  later,  when  the  Father  willed  it,  and  as  Pie  willed  it, 
ore  Yj&stycrsv,  xa&coQ  rftiXyoev  2,  the  Word  came  forth  from  the  Father, 
Xoyog  TipocpopixoQ ,  as  another  than  He,  erepog.  Only  in  the  Incar- 
nation did  He  become  the  true  and  perfect  Son  of  the  Father.  The 
alleged  relation  between  the  Father  and  the  Son  is  therefore  strictly 
subordinationist  in  character.  Hippolytus  does  not  hesitate  even  to  say 
(Philos.  x.  33)  that  God,  had  He  so  willed,  might  have  made  God 
also  any  man  (or  the  man),  instead  of  the  Logos  (el  yap  tteov  ae 
ijftefojoe  TTOtyjoat,  edovaro  •  i/eiQ  tod  Xoyou  to  Ttapddetypa).  The  reproach 
of  ditheism  is  therefore  in  so  far  true  that  Hippolytus  recognized  a 
distinction  of  substance  between  the  Father  and  the  Logos;  the 
latter  was  only  genetically  God.  But  when  Hippolytus  says  of  Callixtus 
(Philos.  ix.  12)  that  «he  falls  sometimes  into  the  error  of  Sabellius 
and  sometimes  into  that  of  Theodotus»,  he  can  only  mean  that  on 
the  one  hand  Callixtus  maintained  the  equality  and  unity  of  nature 
in  the  Father  and  the  Son,  without  denying,  as  did  Sabellius,  the 
distinction  of  persons;  and  on  the  other  maintained  the  perfect  hu- 
manity of  the  Redeemer,  without  denying  His  divinity,  as  did  Theo- 
dotus.    The   schism   of  Hippolytus   did   not   spread ;    even   in  Rome 

1   Tert.,  De  pudicit,  c.   I.  2  C.  Noet.,  c.    10. 


§    54-      HIPPOLYTUS.  2 1  I 

his  faction  seems  to  have  been  short-lived.  There  are  many  reasons 
for  supposing  that  Hippolytus  himself,  shortly  before  his  death, 
put  an  end  to  the  schism.  In  235  he  was  banished  to  Sardinia 
in  the  company  of  St.  Pontianus,  the  second  successor  of  Callixtus. 
There,  if  not  earlier  and  at  Rome,  Pope  and  Anti-pope  appear  to 
have  become  reconciled.  There,  too,  both  succumbed  to  the  suffer- 
ings and  privations  of  their  lot.  Their  bodies  were  finally  interred 
at  Rome  on  the  same  day,  August  13.  in  236  or  237;  the  same 
date  was  also  chosen  for  the  commemoration  of  both. 

y.  Dollinger,  Hippolytus  und  Kallistus,  Ratisbon,  1853.  G.  Volkmar, 
Die  Quellen  der  Ketzergeschichte  bis  zum  Nicänum.  1:  Hippolytus  und 
die  römischen  Zeitgenossen ,  Zürich,  1855.  Hergenröther ;  Hippolytus  oder 
Novatian?  in  Österreich.  Vierteljahresschr.  für  kathol.  Theol.  (1863),  ii.  289 
to  340  (he  defends  the  authorship  of  Hippolytus).  C.  de  Smedt  S.  J.,  Disser- 
tations selectae  in  primam  aetatem  historiae  eccles.,  Gand,  1876,  pp.  83 
to  189  (for  Hippolytus).  Grisar,  Bedarf  die  Hippolytusfrage  einer  Re- 
vision? in  Zeitschr.  für  kathol.  Theol.  (1878),  ii.  505 — 533  (for  Novatian). 
Funk,  Über  den  Verfasser  der  Philosophumenen ,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr. 
(1881),  lxiii.  423 — 464;  Id.,  Kirchengeschichtl.  Abhandlungen  und  Unter- 
suchungen (1899),  ii.  161 — 197  (for  Hippolytus).  y.  B.  de  Rossi ,  in  Bul- 
lettino  di  archeologia  cristiana,  Ser.  3,  a.  vi  (1881),  5 — 55;  Ser.  4,  a.  i 
(1882),  9 — 76,  a.  ii  (1883),  60 — 65,  maintains  that  Hippolytus  did  not  die 
in  Sardinia  but  returned  to  Rome  in  the  reign  of  Philippus  Arabs  (244  to 
249)  and  took  part  in  the  schism  of  Novatian.  In  the  persecution  of  Va- 
lerian (253 — 260)  he  was  condemned  as  a  Christian,  and  on  his  way  to 
death  recognized  the  error  of  his  ways  and  besought  his  friends  to 
return  to  the  unity  of  the  Church.  C.  Erbes ,  Die  Lebenszeit  des  Hippo- 
lytus, in  Jahrbücher  f.  protest.  Theol.  (1888),  xiv.  611 — 656  (Hippolytus  died 
Jan.  29./30.,  251).  y.  B.  lightfoot,  The  Apostolic  Fathers,  part  I  (S.  Cle- 
ment of  Rome),  London,  1890,  ii.  317 — 477:  Hippolytus  of  Portus  (Hippo- 
lytus was  a  bishop  of  the  floating  population  in  the  maritime  town  of 
Portus,  but  resident  at  Rome).  G.  Bicker,  Studien  zur  Hippolytfrage,  Leipzig, 
1893  (supports  the  theses  of  Dollinger  as  against  the  objections  of  de  Rossi 
and  Lightfoot).  —  The  most  important  «testimonia  antiquorum»  concerning 
Hippolytus  are  found  in  H.  Achelis,  Hippolytstudien,  in  Texte  und  Unter- 
suchungen, Leipzig,  1897,  xvi.  4,  1 — 62.  K.  y.  Neumann,  Hippolytus  von 
Rom  in  seiner  Stellung  zu  Staat  und  Welt.  Neue  Funde  und  Forschungen 
zur  Geschichte  von  Staat  und  Kirche  in  der  römischen  Kaiserzeit,  Leipzig, 
1892,  fasc.  i.  y.  Dräseke,  Zum  Syntagma  des  Hippolytus,  in  Zeitschr.  für 
Wissenschaft!.  Theol.  (1902),  xlv.  58 — 80;  Id.,  Noetos  und  die  Noetianer 
in  der  Hippolytus-Refutatio  ix.  6 — 10,  ib.  (1903),  xlvi.  213 — 232. 

2.  HIS  LITERARY  LABORS.  —  Shortly  before  or  after  his  death, 
a  marble  statue  was  erected  at  Rome  in  honor  of  Hippolytus  by 
his  schismatical  followers.  In  1 551,  during  the  progress  of  certain 
excavations,  it  was  discovered  intact,  with  the  exception  of  the  head. 
On  either  side  of  the  chair  in  which  the  saint  is  seated  his  paschal 
cycle  has  been  inscribed,  while  on  the  rounded  surface  that  unites 
the  back  of  the  chair  with  the  left  side  of  the  same  are  likewise 
inscribed    the   titles   of  many  of  his  works.     This   catalogue  is  com- 

14* 


212  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

pleted  and  illustrated  by  the  accounts  given  in  Eusebius1,  St.  Jerome2, 
and  other  writers.  The  works  of  Hippolytus  fill  us  with  astonishment, 
so  extensive  and  varied  are  they,  while  for  erudition  no  Western 
contemporary  can  approach  him.  On  occasions,  however,  he  was 
content  to  repeat  himself,  as  is  evident  from  a  comparison  of  his 
commentary  on  Daniel  with  his  previous  work  De  Antichristo.  The 
better  and  greater  part  of  his  labors  was  in  the  field  of  exegesis. 
Photius  praises3  the  simplicity  and  clearness  of  his  style,  without 
pronouncing  it  really  Attic.  At  present,  with  the  exception  of  a  few 
imperfect  works,  we  possess  only  fragments  of  Hippolytus,  in  Greek, 
Latin,  Syriac,  Coptic,  Arabic,  Ethiopic,  Armenian,  and  Slavonic. 
The  manuscript  tradition  of  his  writings  could  scarcelly  be  more 
broken  and  fragmentary;  their  remnants  turn  up  in  the  remotest 
parts  of  the  antique  world.  Often,  indeed,  these  fragments  must  be 
re-shaped  and  their  text  cleansed  from  foreign  scoria ;  only  here  and 
there  can  the  original  text  be  restored  with  comparative  freedom 
from  gaps  and  breaks. 

The  statue  is  reproduced  in  F.  X.  Kraus,  Real-Encyklopädie  der  christl. 
Altertümer,  Freiburg,  1882 — 1886,  i.  660  —  664;  cf.  J.  Ficker,  Die  alt- 
christlichen  Bildwerke  im  christlichen  Museum  des  Laterans,  Leipzig,  1890, 
pp.  166  ff.  Marucchi,  Guida  del  Museo  Cristiano  Lateranense,  Roma,  1898, 
pp.  79  ff.  —  His  writings  and  their  fragments  (except  the  Philosophumena) 
were  collected  by  J.  A.  Fabricius,  S.  Hippolyti  episc.  et  mart.  opp.  Gr.  etLat., 
2  vols.,  Hamburg,  17 16 — 17 18;  Gallandi,  Bibl.  vet.  Patr.  (1766),  ii;  Migne, 
PG.  (1857),  x;  P.  A.  de  Lagarde ,  Hippolyti  Rom.  quae  feruntur  omnia 
graece,  Leipzig  and  London,  1858.  A  new  edition  of  the  entire  works  of 
Hippolytus  is  appearing  in  «Die  griechischen  christlichen  Schriftsteller  der 
drei  ersten  Jahrhunderte»:  Hippolytus'  Werke,  i:  Exegetische  und  homi- 
letische Schriften,  herausgegeben  von  G.  N.  Bomvetsch  und  H.  Achelis, 
Leipzig,  1897;  cf.  Catholic  University  Bulletin,  Washington,  1900,  vi.  63 
to  76.  Collections  of  Syriac  fragments  are  met  with  in  de  Lagarde, 
Analecta  Syriaca,  Leipzig  and  London,  1858,  pp.  79 — 91,  also  in  Pitra, 
Analecta  sacra  (1883),  iy-  3^ — 64  306—331.  Armenian  fragments,  in 
Pitra,  1.  c. ,  ii.  226 — 239;  iv.  64 — 71  331 — 337.  For  Old-Slavonic  texts 
cf.  Bonwetsch,  in  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristlichen  Literatur,  i.  893—897. 
—  Brief  studies  on  all  the  literary  labors  of  Hippolytus,  in  C.  P.  Caspari, 
Ungedruckte  Quellen  zur  Geschichte  des  Taufsymbols,  Christiania,  1875, 
iii.  377 — 409;  Lightfoot,  1.  c.  (§  54,  1),  ii.  388—405,  and  Harnack,  1.  c, 
i.  605 — 646;  Duchesne,  Histoire  ancienne  de  l'figlise,  2.  ed.,  Paris  1906, 
tome  i,  c.  xvii. 

3.  THE  PHILOSOPHUMENA  AND  OTHER  POLEMICAL  WORKS.  —  As 
we  have  already  remarked  (§  54,  1)  the  Philosophumena  are  not  men- 
tioned, neither  on  the  statue  of  Hippolytus  nor  in  the  catalogue  of  his 
works  by  Eusebius  and  Jerome.  Photius  calls  them4  «the  labyrinth», 
tov  Xaßupivdov,  and  Theodoret  of  Cyrus5  calls  the  work  of  Hippo- 
lytus against  Artemon  «the  little  labyrinth»,  6  ofxixpoq  XaßoptvdoQ.   It  is 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   22.  2  De  viris  ill.,  c.   61.  3  Bibl.  Cod.    121   202. 

4  Bibl.  Cod.  48.  5  Haeret.  fabul.  comp.  ii.   5. 


§    54-      HIPPOLYTUS.  213 

not  improbable  that  the  author  called  himself  his  work  «the  labyrinth 
of  heresies»  (cf.  x.  5  :  rbv  Aaßuptvftov  tojv  aipiazov).  In  the  course 
of  the  work  (ix.  8)  he  refers  to  the  first  four  books  as  follows :  iu  töiq 
(fdoaocpoofJiivoiQ  sc.  doypaaiv,  i.  e.  «in  the  description  of  philosophical 
doctrines».  The  traditional,  extension  of  the  title  «Philosophumena» 
to  the  whole  work  rests  on  no  intrinsic  evidence.  In  the  preface  he 
proposes  to  convince  heretics  that  they  have  not  taken  their  teach- 
ings from  the  Holy  Scriptures  or  the  Tradition  but  from  the  wisdom 
of  the  Hellenes,  ex  ttjq  'EAAyvaju  aocpiaq.  Hence  the  comprehensive 
account  of  Hellenic  philosophy  to  which  the  first  four  books  are 
devoted.  In  the  first  book  there  is  an  outline-sketch  of  Greek  philo- 
sophy, based,  however,  on  very  unreliable  sources.  From  the  con- 
clusion of  the  first  book  it  seems  certain  that  the  second  book  dealt 
with  «the  mysteries  and  all  the  curious  fancies  of  individuals  about 
the  stars  or  spaces».  The  contents  of  the  third  book  must  have 
been  similar,  for  at  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  (in  the  beginning 
mutilated)  he  is  still  combating  astrology  and  magic.  This  fourth 
book  is  doubtless  identical  with  his  work  «Against  the  Magi» 
(xara  pdycouj  that  he  refers  to  elsewhere  (vi.  39).  The  second  part 
of  the  work  opens  w7ith  the  fifth  book,  the  description  of  the  he- 
resies, and  the  proof  of  their  heathen  origin.  Besides  the  accounts 
of  such  earlier  heresiologists  as  Irenaeus  he  made  use  of  a  number 
of  works  that  he  took  for  genuine  writings  of  the  heretics,  but 
which,  in  the  hypothesis  of  some  modern  writers  like  Salmon  and 
Stähelin,  were  only  clever  forgeries.  The  tenth  and  last  book  con- 
tains a  summary  recapitulation  of  the  whole  work.  The  work  was 
probably  composed  towards  the  end  of  his  life.  He  seems  to  refer 
(x.  30)  to  the  Chronicle  of  Hippolytus.  In  any  case  the  pontificate 
of  Callixtus  is  described  (ix.  11  — 13)  as  a  thing  of  the  past.  —  A 
smaller  work  against  all  heresies  *,  published  long  before  the  com- 
position of  the  Philosophumena  (see  the  preface  of  the  latter),  is 
usually  known  since  Photius2  as  the  «Syntagma».  The  latter  writer 
tells  us  that  it  contained  the  refutation  of  thirty-two  heresies,  o6v- 
xay/jta  xara  alpeaecov  Aß' ,  beginning  with  the  Dositheans  and  ending 
with  the  Noetians.  It  is  now  lost,  but  its  contents  have  been  incor- 
porated with  the  writings  of  such  later  heresiologists  as  Pseudo- 
Tertullian  (Libellus  adversus  omnes  haereses),  Epiphanius  (Haereses), 
and  Philastrius  (Liber  de  haeresibus).  The  fragment  of  a  work 
against  the  Patripassian  Noetus,  known  in  the  manuscripts  as  VpcAia 
elg  T7jv  aipeaiv  Noyroo  tivoq,  is  no  homily,  but  the  ending  of  a  com- 
prehensive anti-heretical  work,  either  the  Syntagma  or  a  work  other- 
wise  unknown   to   us.     Of  a   work   against  Marcion,   known  to  Eu- 

1  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   22;  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  61. 

2  Bibl.  Cod.   I2i. 


214  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

sebius  *  and  St.  Jerome 2,  only  the  title  has  been  preserved ;  perhaps 
it  is  identical  with  a  work  mentioned  in  the  statue-catalogue  as 
Trsp}  zayadoi)  xdt  nodev  to  xaxov.  Another  lost  work,  the  famous 
Anonymus  adver sus  Artemon,  an  Ebionite  Monarchian,  used  by 
Eusebius3  and  Theodoret  of  Cyrus4  was  very  probably  written  by 
Hippolytus5.  His  work  in  defence  of  the  Gospel  and  the  Apo- 
calypse of  St.  John,  mentioned  in  the  statue-catalogue,  (r)a  vnep  rou 
xazd  'ladvyv  sfdaJyyeXioü  xac  aKoxaXoipeojQ,  has  perished;  not  even 
a  fragment  of  it  has  reached  us.  It  was  probably  written  against 
the  so-called  Alogi  who  wished  to  banish  from  the  Church  all  the 
writings  of  St.  John.  Some  very  interesting  fragments  of  a  Syriac 
version  of  another  work  of  Hippolytus  on  the  Apocalypse,  known  to 
Ebedjesu  (f  13 18)  as  Capita  adversus  Caium  (in  Greek  probably 
xeydkata  xazd  ratoo),  were  published  by  J.  Gwynn  (1888 — 1890). 
The  Anti-Montanist  Caius  had  pronounced  the  Apocalypse  to  be  a 
work  of  Cerinthus.  It  taught,  he  said,  a  millenarian  kingdom  of  carnal 
joys,  and  was  therefore  contradictory  of  the  recognized  canonical 
and  apostolical  writings.  Principally  Anti - Montanistic  also,  in  all 
probability,  was  the  work  entitled  on  the  statue  rrspl  yapujpdrojv 
axooTohxrj  napddooLQ,  unless  we  aught  to  read  two  titles :  Trsp}  yapta- 
pdrov  and  änoazofoxr]  TcapadoatQ.  There  is  good  reason  to  believe 
that  the  same  work  is  the  basis  of  that  section  of  the  Apostolic  Con- 
stitutions which  treats  of  the   «charismata»   (viii.  1 — 2). 

Editions  of  the  Philosophumena  were  published  by  E.  Miller,  Oxford, 
1851-,  L.  Duncker  and  F.  G.  Schneidewin ,  Göttingen,  1859;  P.  Cruice, 
Paris,  i860.  The  Duncker  and  Schneidewin  edition  is  reprinted  in  Migne, 
PG.,  xvi.  3,  among  the  works  of  Origen.  The  first  book  of  the  Philosophu- 
mena is  accessible  in  a  new  recension  in  H.  Diels,  Doxographi  Graeci,  Berlin, 
1879,  PP-  551 — 576;  cf.  pp.  144 — 156.  For  the  literature  of  the  subject 
cf-  §  54>  I-  G-  Salmon,  The  Cross-References  in  the  «Philosophumena»,  in 
Hermathena  (1885),  v.  389 — 402;  J.  Dräseke,  Zur  «refutatio  omnium  hae- 
resium»  des  Hippolytus,  in  Zeitschrift  f.  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1902),  xlv. 
263  —  289.  The  latter,  following  a  hypothesis  of  Bunsen,  attributes  to  Hippo- 
lytus chapters  n  and  12  of  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus  (§  22);  they  were 
taken,  he  thinks,  from  the  Philosophumena.  Without  specifying  the  work 
whence  they  were  taken,  it  has  been  shown  by  grave  intrinsic  arguments 
that  they  are  really  from  the  hand  of  Hippolytus;  pf.  G.  N.  Bonwetsch, 
Der  Autor  der  Schlußkapitel  des  Briefes  an  Diognet  (Nachrichten  der 
Akad.  der  Wissensch.,  philol.-hist.  KL,  Göttingen,  1902,  fasc.  II).  H.  Stähelin, 
Die  gnostischen  Quellen  Hippolyts  in  seiner  Hauptschrift  gegen  die  Häre 
tiker  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  vi.  3),  Leipzig,  1890,  pp.  1  — 108.  Con- 
cerning the  Syntagma  and  the  fragment  of  Contra  Noetum  see  R.  A.  Lip- 
sius ,  Die  Quellen  der  ältesten  Ketzergeschichte  neu  untersucht,  Leipzig, 
I^75»  PP-  91 — 19°-  The  fragments  of  the  Capita  adversus  Caium  were 
published  in  Syriac  and  in  English  by  J.  Gwynn ,  Hippolytus  and  his 
«Heads  against  Caius»,    in  Hermathena  (1888),  vi.  397—418;    Hippolytus 

1  Em.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   22.  2  Hie?:,  De  viris  ill.,  c.   61. 

3  Bus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  v.   28.  4  Haeret.  fabul.   comp.  ii.   5. 

6  Phot.,  Bibl.  Cod.  48. 


§    54-      HIPPOLYTUS.  215 

on  St.  Matth.  xxiv.  15 — 22,  in  Hermathena  (1890),  vii.  137 — 150.  There 
is  a  German  version  of  these  fragments  in  the  Berlin  edition  of  Hippo- 
lytus,  i.  2,  241  —  247,  where  the  two  fragments  on  Mt.  xxiv.  15  ff.,  that 
Gwynn  attributed  to  the  commentary  of  Hippolytus  on  Matthew,  are  rightly 
adjudged  to  the  Capita  adversus  Caium.  For  the  other  five  fragments  on 
passages  of  the  Apocalypse  see  Th.  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons, 
ii.  2,  973^991:  «Hippolytus  gegen  Caius»  (an  excellent  dissertation). 

4.  APOLOGETIC  AND  DOCTRINAL  WRITINGS.  —  Towards  the  end 
of  the  Philosophumena  (x.  32)  the  author  refers  to  an  earlier  work 
nep\  zrjq  too  izavzbq  odaiaq,  doubtless  the  one  entitled  on  the  statue- 
catalogue  npbq  <fEXXrjvaq  xai  rcpbq  IIMzojva  rj  tat  7zep\  zoo  nawoQ. 
A  fragment  of  it  survives  under  the  title  'hoorj7roo  ex  zoo  (rrpbq  "El- 
hjvaq)  Xoyoo  zoo  e7iiyejpo.ppevoo  xazä  WAzcovoq  (TlXdzcova)  xep\  zfjq 
zoo  navzbq  alzcaq.  It  treats  of  Hades,  the  joys  of  the  just  and  the 
sufferings  of  the  wicked;  in  its  traditional  form  it  contains  hetero- 
geneous and  spurious  elements.  Photius  was  acquainted 1  with  a 
work  in  two  books  known  as  'Icüotjtioo  xep\  zoo  ttolvzoq,  written 
against  Plato  and  the  theories  of  the  Platonist  Alcinous  on  the  soul, 
matter  and  the  resurrection.  It  undertook  also  to  prove  that  the 
Jewish  people  was  more  ancient  than  the  Hellenes.  The  fragment 
entitled  dTiodetxztxrj  Ttpbq  'Ioodaiooq  deals  with  the  misfortunes  of  the 
Jews  and  traces  them  to  their  crime  against  the  Messias.  It  is  of 
doubtful  authenticity;  none  of  the  ancients  mentions  any  large  work 
of  Hippolytus  against  the  Jews.  —  The  work  De  Antic  aristo*  is 
unique  among  the  writings  of  Hippolytus,  being  the  only  one  of  which 
the  complete  text  has  come  down  to  us.  It  purposes  to  describe 
fully,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  the  person  and  the  works  of  Anti- 
christ. It  is  dedicated  to  a  certain  Theophilus ,  a  friend  of  the 
author,  and  was  written  about  202.  The  statue-catalogue  mentions  a 
work  7tep\  &(eo)o  xac  aapxbq  dvaazdaewq;  and  St.  Jerome3  was  ac- 
quainted with  a  work  of  Hippolytus  De  resurr ectione.  Some  frag- 
ments of  a  treatise  of  Hippolytus  «To  the  Empress  Julia  Mammaea 
on  the  resurrection»  are  preserved  in  Syriac;  she  was  the  mother  of 
the  Emperor  Alexander  Severus  (222 — 235).  Perhaps  two  fragments 
of  Hippolytus  ex  zyjq  rcpbq  ßaatlida  zcvä  STtiazoXTJq,  preserved  in  Theo- 
doret  of  Cyrus,  and  a  fragment  in  Anastasius  Sinaita  ex  zoo  xep} 
dvaazdaeajq  xac  dyftapoiaq  Xoyoü ,  belong  to  this  work.  The  xpo- 
zpe-rczixbq  xpbq  leßrjpelvav,  mentioned  in  the  statue-catalogue,  is  other- 
wise unknown,  and  apparently  it  has  utterly  perished.  The  same 
fate  has  befallen  the  work  De  dispensatio?ie  {nep\  olxovopiaq,  the  Incar- 
nation) mentioned  by  the  Syrian  Ebedjesu. 

For  the  fragment  of  «the  Origin  of  the  Universe»  cf.  Harnack,  Gesch. 
der  altchristl.  Lit.,  i.  622  f.;  J.  Dräseke ,  Zu  Hippolytus'  «Demonstratio 
adversus  ludaeos»,  in  Jahrb.  f.  protest.  Theol.  (1886),  xii.  456 — 461.    The 

1  Ib.  2  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.   61.  3  lb. 


2l6  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

work  «On  Antichrist»,  was  edited  by  Ackelis  in  the  Berlin  edition  of 
Hippolytus,  i.  2,  3 — 47 ;  with  the  aid  (for  the  first  time)  of  a  Jerusalem 
codex  of  the  tenth  century  and  of  a  Slavonic  version  translated  (1895)  mt0 
German  by  Bonwetsch.  For  earlier  editions  and  the  manuscript-tradition 
cf.  AcheliSy  Hippolytstudien ,  pp.  65 — 93.  The  edition  of  Achelis  is  dis- 
cussed by  P.  Wendland,  in  Hermes  (1899),  xxxiv.  412—427.  V.  Gröne 
made  a  German  version  of  the  De  Antichristo,  Kempten,  1873  (Bibl.  der 
Kirchenväter).  Some  profound  researches  on  the  same  book  are  due  to 
Fr.  C.  Overbeck,  Quaestionum  Hippolytearum  specimen  (Dissert,  inaug.), 
Jena,  1864.  The  fragments  of  the  work  «On  the  Resurrection»  are  in  the 
Berlin  edition,  i.  2,  251 — 254. 

5.  EXEGETICAL  AND  HOMILETIC  WRITINGS.  —  Eusebius  was  ac- 
quainted1 with  writings  of  Hippolytus  slg  rqv  i$ay pspov  and  elq  to.  pera 
ttjV  e^arjfiepov  (probably  on  Gen.  ii — iii).  St.  Jerome  describes  them2 
as  in  kgavjpspov,  in  Exodum,  in  Genesim ,  and  elsewhere3  refers  to 
scholia  of  Hippolytus  on  the  Ark  of  Noah  and  on  Melchisedech.  He 
describes  minutely4  the  exposition  of  Hippolytus  on  the  Blessing  of 
Jacob  (Gen.  xxvii).  The  principal  remnants  of  his  Genesis  Commen- 
taries are  copious  scholia  on  the  Blessing  of  Jacob  (Gen.  xlix),  pre- 
served in  the  Octateuch-Catena  of  the  sophist  Procopius  of  Gaza. 
There  are  no  fragments  extant  of  Hippolytus  on  Exodus  and  Levi- 
ticus. Leontius  of  Byzantium  quotes  a  few  lines  from  Hippolytus 
on  Numb,  xxiii  or  xxiv,  under  the  title  ex  rwv  edXoyuov  zoo  Ba- 
Xadp,  and  Theodoret  of  Cyrus  has  saved  three  small  fragments  elg 
rrjv  codrjv  TTjv  peydtyv,  i.  e.  on  the  so-called  Canticle  of  Moses 
(Deut.  xxxii).  A  late  Pentateuch-Catena  in  Arabic  contains  both 
genuine  and  spurious  scholia  to  Genesis,  Numbers  and  Deuteronomy. 
In  1897  Achelis  discovered  a  Greek  fragment  «From  the  exposition 
of  the  Book  of  Ruth».  Theodoret  of  Cyrus  quotes  four  short  pas- 
sages ex  zoo  loyoo  zoo  elg  rbv  'EXxaväv  xac  elg  ttjv  vAvvav.  The  statue- 
catalogue  mentions  a  work  on  the  Witch  ofEndor,  (elg  iy)yaarpcpoSou, 
that  is  called  by  St.  Jerome 5  De  Saul  et  Pythonissa.  It  seems  to  be 
lost.  The  fragment  of  the  nocturnal  scene  at  Endor  published  by 
De  Magistris  in  1795  under  the  name  of  Hippolytus  is  apparently 
spurious.  The  work  on  the  Psalms  (tig  zobg  (p)alpoog  or  (elg  (p)alpoug 
mentioned  in  the  statue  -  catalogue ,  and  called  De  psalmis  by  Je- 
rome 6  was  only  an  opusculum  in  paucos  Psalmos,  as  Jerome  expressly 
states  elsewhere7.  Theodoret  quotes  three  fragments  of  Psalm-com- 
mentaries: Ps.  ii.  7;  Ps.  xxii.  1  (Septuagint,  with  a  remarkable  passage 
on  the  sinlessness  of  Mary)  and  Ps.  xxiii.  7  (Septuagint).  Achelis 
proved  in  1897  that  all  other  fragments  of  Hippolytus-commen- 
taries  on  the  Psalms  in  Greek  and  Syriac,  as  found  in  the  printed 
editions,  are,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  insignificant  ones,  spurious. 
In    the   same  year  Bonwetsch    was   able  to  add  some  Slavonic,    Ar- 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   22.  2  De  viris  ill.,   c.   61.  3  Ep.  48,    19;   73,   2. 

4  Ep.  36,    16.  5  De  viris  ill.,   c.  61.  6  Ib.  7  Ep.    112,   20. 


§    54-      HIPPOLYTUS.  217 

menian  and  Syriac  fragments  to  the  remnants  of  the  commentary  on 
the  Canticle  of  canticles,  slg  zb  aofia,  mentioned  by  Eusebius1  and 
Jerome2.  Of  the  commentary  on  Proverbs3  only  Catenae-fragments 
have  come  down  to  us;  the  commentary  on  Ecclesiastes  4  has  appa- 
rently perished.  Theodoret  quotes  a  passage  of  Hippolytus  on  Is.  ix,  1 
as  ix  zou  Xoyou  zou  elg  ztjv  äpyi]V  zou  'ffaacou.  There  is  no  evidence 
to  show  that  Hippolytus  wrote  a  commentary  on  Jeremias.  He  did 
write  on  Ezechiel,  according  to  Eusebius5,  slg  [isprj  too  'k&xivj/l; 
at  least  one  Syriac  fragment  on  Ez.  i,  5  — 10  (the  Symbols  of 
the  Evangelists)  must  be  looked  on  as  genuine.  —  The  best-known 
and  the  longest  of  the  exegetical  works  of  Hippolytus  is  his  com- 
mentary on  the  book  of  Daniel.  In  1897  Bonwetsch  was  able  to 
publish  the  greater  part  of  it  in  Greek,  and  the  whole,  or  nearly 
the  whole  of  it,  in  Sclavonic  or  Old-Sclavonic,  together  with  a  German 
translation.  Besides  the  proto-canonical  book  of  Daniel  the  com- 
mentary treats  the  story  of  Susanna  and  the  Hymn  of  the  Three 
Children  in  the  fiery  furnace ;  in  the  text  of  Bonwetsch  the  narrative 
of  Bel  and  the  Dragon  is  lacking.  The  work  is  divided  into  four 
books,  was  written  about  204,  after  the  treatise  on  Antichrist  (iv. 
7,  1),  and  is  the  oldest  of  the  extant  exegetical  writings  of  the 
Christian  Church.  His  commentary  on  Zacharias  was  known  to  St.  Je- 
rome6. The  latter  was  also  acquainted  with  an  Hippolytus-com- 
mentary  on  Matthew7;  in  certain  Oriental  Catenae  (Coptic,  Arabic 
and  Ethiopic)  there  are  Hippolytus-scholia  to  Mt.  xxiv.  The  frag- 
ment in  Theodoret  ix  zou  Aoyou  zoo  slg  ztjv  zcov  zaXdvzcov  dto.vofir)]J 
must  have  been  taken  from  a  homily«  on  the  parable  of  the  talents 
(Mt.  xxv.  14  ff);  similarly  the  three  fragments  in  Theodoret  on  the 
two  thieves  (slg  zoug  duo  Xyozag'.  Lk.  xxiii.  39  ff).  An  Armenian  trans- 
lation of  the  homily  in  quatriduanum  Lazarum  II  is  found  among  the 
spurious  works  of  St.  John  Chrysostom 8.  The  two  recensions  of  this 
Armenian  text,  bearing  the  name  of  Hippolytus,  are  taken  from  «the 
commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  John  and  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus». 
From  later  ecclesiastical  writers  we  learn  something  about  the  nature 
of  his  commentary  on  the  Apocalypse  (de  apocalypsi)%  particularly 
from  a  thirteenth-century  Arabic  commentary  of  an  unknown  author 
on  that  book.  —  Hippolytus  was  the  first  Christian  writer  to  com- 
pose lengthy  commentaries  on  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  He 
does  not  follow  closely  the  sequence  of  the  biblical  narrative,  nor 
dissect  the  text  minutely,  it  is  rather  the  principal  ideas  that  he 
selects  and  discusses  in  a  large  and  free  manner.  It  is  well  to  recall 
the  fact  that  his  contemporary  Origen  is  likewise  a  commentator  of 
the    Scriptures.     But   while   Origen   is   intellectually   the    superior   of 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   22.  -  De  viris  ill.,  c.   61.  3  Ib.  4  lb. 

5  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   22.  a  De  viris  ill.,   c.  61;   Comm.  in  Zach.,  praef. 

7  Comm.  in  Matth.,  praef.       8  Migne,  PG.,  lxii.  775  —  77s-      9  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  61. 


218  FIRST   PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

Hippolytus,  and  a  more  profound  thinker,  the  latter  possesses  a  fund 
of  exegetic  principles  more  clear  and  solid  than  those  of  Origen. 
Hippolytus  is  more  sober  in  his  exposition  and  his  principles  more 
like  those  of  the  later  Antiochene  school.  He  loves,  indeed,  to 
allegorize  and  makes  much  use  of  typology.  But  there  is  in  him 
a  certain  moderation;  he  gives  evidence  of  tact  and  taste,  and  of  a 
mind  open  to  the  historical  view  of  scriptural  things.  Many  fragments 
published  as  remnants  of  his  commentaries  have  really  drifted  down 
from  his  homilies.  A  sermon,  De  laude  Domini  Salvatons,  that  he 
preached  in  the  presence  of  Origen1,  has  perished.  From  the  ex- 
tant fragments  we  should  judge  that  the  work  on  Easter  fnsp}  tod 
Ttda/a)  mentioned  by  Eusebius2  and  by  St.  Jerome3  was  a  paschal 
sermon.  The  sermon  «on  the  Epiphany» ,  slq  to.  dyta  fteocpdveta, 
extant  complete,  both  in  Greek  and  Syriac,  is  full  of  movement  and 
strength,  but  is  most  probably  a  spurious  discourse  on  baptism. 

The  best  collection  of  the  exegetic  and  homiletic  works  and  fragments 
of  Hippolytus  is  found  in  the  first  volume  of  the  Berlin  edition.  We  owe 
to  Bonwetsch  the  edition  of  the  commentary  on  Daniel  and  the  frag- 
ments of  the  commentary  on  the  Canticle  of  canticles ;  and  to  Achelis  the 
«minor  exegetical  and  homiletic  texts».  The  Slavonic,  Armenian,  Syriac  and 
other  texts  are  given  in  German  translation.  See  Bonwetsch ,  Studien  zu 
den  Kommentaren  Hippolyts  zum  Buche  Daniel  und  Hohen  Liede,  in  Texte 
u.  Untersuchungen,  Leipzig,  1897,  xvi.  2;  Achelis,  Hippolytstudien  (ib., 
Leipzig,  1897,  xvi.  4).  All  the  fragments  of  Daniel  known  previously 
to  1877  were  published  and  commented  by  O.  Bardenhewer ,  Des 
hl.  Hippolytus  von  Rom  Kommentar  zum  Buche  Daniel,  Freiburg,  1877. 
In  1885 — 1886,  B.  Georgiades  published  in  several  fascicules  of  the 
'ExxXir]<7ia<rnxY)  'AXujikia  (Constantinople)  the  Greek  text  of  the  fourth  and 
last  book  of  the  commentary  on  Daniel  vii— xii.  Cf.  Bonwetsch,  Die 
handschriftliche  Überlieferung  des  Danielkommentars  Hippolyts,  in  Nach- 
richten von  der  k.  Gesellsch.  der  Wissensch.  zu  Göttingen,  Philol.-hist. 
Klasse  (1896),  pp.  16 — 42.  For  a  spurious  passage  of  this  commentary 
(iv.  23,  3)  on  the  date  of  the  Savior's  birth  (Dec.  25.)  see  Bonwetsch, 
ib.  (1895),  PP-  5*5 — 527>  and  the  literature  referred  to  there  on  p.  515. 
The  Greek  text  of  the  Slavonic  fragment  on  Apoc.  xx.  1 — 3  (Berlin  ed., 
i.  2,  237  f.)  was  edited  by  Fr.  Dieka??ip ,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1897), 
lxxix.  604 — 616,  and  shown  to  be  spurious.  G.  N.  Bonwetsch,  Hippolyts 
Kommentar  zum  Hohenlied  auf  Grund  von  N.  Marrs  Ausgabe  des  grusini- 
schen Textes  herausgegeben,  in  Texte  und  Untersuch.,  new  series,  Leipzig, 
1902,  viii.  2.  There  are  in  the  Codex  used  by  Marr  other  quite  unknown, 
and  as  yet  unedited,  Hippolytean  texts.  E.  Violard,  Etude  sur  le  commen- 
taire  d'Hippolyte  sur  le  livre  de  Daniel  (These),  Montbeliard,  1903.  Batiffol 
holds  that  Nestorius  is  the  author  of  the  Sermon  «On  the  Epiphany», 
Revue  Biblique  (1900),  ix.  341 — 344;  G.  Chalatiantz,  Über  die  armenische 
Version  der  Weltchronik  des  Hippolytus,  in  Wiener  Zeitschr.  für  d.  Kunde 
d.  Morgenl.  (1903),  pp.  182—186;  G.  N.  Bonwetsch,  Drei  Georgisch  er- 
haltene Schriften  von  Hippolytus:  Der  Segen  Jakobs,  Der  Segen  Moses', 
Die  Erzählung  von  David  und  Goliath  (Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  xi.  1), 
Leipzig,  1904-,  O.  Bardenhewer,  Neue  exegetische  Schriften  des  hl.  Hippo- 
lytus, in  Biblische  Zeitschrift  (1905),  pp.   1 — 17. 

1  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  61.  2  Hist,   eccl.,  vi.   22.  3  De  viris  ill.,  c.  61 


§    54-      HIPPOLYTUS.  219 

6.  CHRONOLOGICAL  WRITINGS.  CANON  LAW.  ODES.  —  Accord- 
ing to  Eusebius1  and  St.  Jerome2  a  work  of  Hippolytus,  entitled 
on  the  statue-catalogue  d7z6dec$c$  ypovoiv  too  Ttdaya  contained  chrono- 
logical disquisitions  and  a  paschal  cycle  of  sixteen  years  beginning 
with  the  year  222.  The  most  important  relic  of  this  work  is  visible 
in  the  paschal  tables  for  the  years  222 — 233  engraved  on  either 
side  of  the  chair  in  which  the  figure  of  Hippolytus  is  seated.  His 
«Chronicle»,  called  ypovixcov  (sc.  ßißÄog}),  on  the  statue- catalogue 
and  very  probably  identical  with  the  work  mentioned  in  Philosophu- 
mena  (x.  30),  is  a  compendium  of  chronology  from  the  creation  of 
the  world  to  234.  Lengthy  fragments  of  it  have  survived  in  Greek; 
it  has  also  reached  us  in  Latin,  through  three  distinct  recensions 
of  the  so-called  Liber  generationis  (mundi).  —  From  a.  remark  of 
St.  Jerome 3  we  may  conclude  that  Hippolytus  wrote  also  on  ec- 
clesiastical law  and  customs.  There  is  no  evidence,  however,  for 
ascribing  to  him  the  authorship  of  such  late  collections  of  apostolic 
ordinances  as  the  Constitutiones  per  Hip  poly  turn ,  the  Egyptian 
Church-Ordinance  and  the  Canones  Hippolyti  (§  75,  6  f).  —  Accord- 
ing to  the  statue-catalogue  he  also  wrote  Odes,  wdat,  but  nothing 
more  is  known  of  them. 

The  fragments  of  the  work  on  Easter  and  the  Chronicle  are  indicated 
by  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Lit.,  i.  625  ff.  The  different  recensions 
of  the  Liber  generationis  were  edited  by  Th.  Mommsen,  in  Chronica 
minora  saec.  Iv  v  vi  vii,  vol.  1  (Monum.  Germ.  hist.  Auct.  antiquiss.,  ix.), 
Berlin,  1892,  pp.  78  ff. ;  by  C.  Frick,  Chronica  minora,  vol.  1,  Leipzig, 
1892,  pp.  iff.;  cf.  v.  ff.  Frick  maintains  that  in  the  Liber  generationis 
the  Chronicle  of  Hippolytus  is  used  only  as  a  source,  not  translated  or 
revised ;  but  his  thesis  seems  untenable.  On  the  Chronicle  see  H.  Gelzer, 
Sextus  Julius  Africanus,  Leipzig,  1885,  ii.  1,  1 — 23;  IL.  Achelis ,  Über 
Hippolyts  Oden  und  seine  Schrift  «Zur  großen  Ode»  (§  54,  5),  in  Nach- 
richten von  der  k.  Gesellsch.  der  Wissensch.  zu  Göttingen.  Philol.-histor. 
Klasse,   1896,  pp.  272 — 276. 

7.  SPURIOUS  WRITINGS.  —  Among  the  writings  falsely  ascribed 
to  Hippolytus  two  may  be  mentioned :  the  nep\  ztjq  aovvsAeiaQ  zoo 
xoff/iou,  compiled  from  his  work  on  Antichrist  (§  54,  4)  and  from 
writings  of  St.  Ephraem  Syrus,  but  not  earlier  than  the  ninth  century, 
also  a  work  xava  BrjpcovoQ  xat  "HXixoc,  rcov  aiperixcov  nep\  dsoAoyiaQ 
xai  crapxd>(T£a)Q,  written  perhaps  in  the  sixth  century  and  surviving 
only  in  meagre  fragments. 

The  work  De  consunmiatione  mundi  is  found  in  the  Berlin  edition,  i.  2, 
289 — 309.  In  his  Gesammelte  Patristische  Untersuchungen,  Altona,  1889, 
pp.  56  ff.  J.  Dräseke  has  undertaken  to  vindicate  for  the  Pseudo-Dionysius 
the  Areopagite  the  authorship  of  the  work  against  Beron  and  Helix,  but 
his  attempt  is  unsuccessful. 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   22.  2  De  viris  ill.,  c.  61. 

3  Ep.  7T,  6. 


220  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

8.  the  muratorian  fragment.  —  The  Muratorian  Fragment,  so-called 
from  its  discoverer,  L.  A.  Muratori  (f  1750),  and  extant  in  an  eighth  cen- 
tury codex,  is  a  catalogue  of  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  mutilated 
at  the  beginning  and  perhaps  at  the  end.  Intrinsic  evidence  goes  to  show 
that  it  was  composed  in  the  West  (Rome?)  about  the  year  200.  The  very 
incorrect  and  difficult  Latin  text  is  perhaps  a  version  from  the  original 
Greek.  Lightfoot  attempted,  but  without  success,  to  claim  its  authorship 
for  Hippolytus.     Th.  Zahn,    Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.   Kanons  (1890),  ii. 

1,  1  — 143,  and  G.  Kuhn,  Das  Muratorische  Fragment,  Zürich,  1892,  contain 
the  most  recent  and  exhaustive  commentaries  on  this  document.  For  more 
precise  details  see  the  manuals  of  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  and 
in  particular  Westcott,  On  the  Canon,  Appendix  C.,  7.  ed.,  1896,  pp.  530 
to  547.  —  A  new  edition,  with  a  proposed  restoration  of  the  Latin  text, 
was  brought  out  by  H.  Lietzmann,  Kleine  Texte  für  theolog.  Vorlesungen 
und  Übungen,  Bonn,  1902;  A.  Harnack,  Miscellen,  in  Texte  und  Unter- 
suchungen, new  series,  v.  3,  Leipzig,   1900,  pp.   107 — 112. 

§  55.    Novatian. 

I .  HIS  LIFE.  —  The  schism  of  Hippolytus  was  perhaps  forgotten 
when  Novatian1  began  another  that  was  destined  to  an  almost  uni- 
versal extension  and  a  life  of  centuries,  especially  in  the  East.  In  250 
Novatian  was  a  very  distinguished  member  of  the  Roman  clergy; 
two  of  the  letters  addressed  by  that  body  to  Cyprian  of  Carthage2 
after  the  death  of  Pope  Fabian  (Jan.  20.,  250)  were  written  by  No- 
vatian (§51,  5).  Both  letters  represent  the  praxis  of  the  Roman 
Church  relative  to  the  lapsi;  the  writer  and  those  who  commissioned 
him  to  write  are  in  full  harmony  with  the  opinions  of  Cyprian.  No- 
vatian abandoned  the  Roman  traditions  and  betrayed  his  own  prin- 
ciples when  in  251  he  took  up  at  Rome  the  leadership  of  a  rigorist 
party  in  opposition  to  Pope  Cornelius  (from  March  251),  and  de- 
manded with  them  the  perpetual  exclusion  of  all  apostates  from 
ecclesiastical  communion3.  Concerning  his  later  life  and  his  end 
nothing  certain  is  known.  There  are  grave  reasons  for  doubting  the 
statement,  first  met  with  Socrates4  that  Novatian  died  a  martyr's 
death  in  the  persecution  of  Valerian  (257 — 260). 

On  the  schism  of  Novatian  see  v.  Hefele,  in  Kirchenlexikon,  2.  ed., 
ix.  542 — 550;  Harnack,  in  Realencyklopädie  für  protest.  Theol.  und  Kirche, 

2.  ed.,  x.  652 — 670.  For  the  Cyprianic  epistles  30  and  36  see  Harnack,  in 
Theol.  Abhandlungen,  C.  v.  Weizsäcker  gewidmet,  Freiburg,  1892,  pp.  14 
to  20.  Forged  acts  of  Novatian's  martyrdom  were  current  in  the  sixth 
century;  see  Eulogius  of  Alexandria  in  Phot.,  Bibl.  Cod.  182  208  280. 
W.  Ammundsen ,  Novatianus  og  Novatianismen  etc.,  Kopenhagen,  1901 ; 
F.  Torrn,  En  Kritisk  Fremstilling  of  Novatianus'  Liv  og  Forfatter- 
virksomhed  etc.,  Kopenhagen,  1901  ;  J.  O.  Anderson,  Novatian,  Kopen- 
hagen, 1901. 

1  The  Latin  sources  usually  speak  of  him  as  Novatianus ;  the  Greeks  write  mostly 
Noouärog,  Naudrog,  Naßdrog. 

2  Ep.  30  and  36,  ed.  Hartel.  3  Socrates,  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.   28.  4  lb. 


§    55-      NO  VATI  AN.  221 

2.  HIS  LITERARY  LABORS.  —  The  two  letters  to  Cyprian 
(§  55,  i)  are  quite  sufficient  to  prove  the  superior  ability  of  Novatian 
as  a  rhetorician  and  a  philosopher.  It  is  admitted  also  by  his  earliest 
adversaries,  Pope  Cornelius 1  and  Cyprian 2.  Jerome  is  the  first  to 
inform  us  about  his  writings :  Scripsit  autem  de  pascha,  de  sabbato, 
de  circumcisione ,  de  sacerdote,  de  oratione,  de  cibis  iudaicis,  de  in- 
stantia, de  Attalo  multaque  alia  et  de  trinitate  grande  volumen,  quasi 
stzctojutju  operis  Tertulliani  faciens,  quod  plerique  nescientes  Cypriani 
existimant3.  The  Epistolae  Novatiani  that  Jerome  mentions  else- 
where4 are  perhaps  the  letters  sent  by  him  in  251  to  many  bishops 
in  order  to  gain  them  over  to  his  cause5.  Only  two  of  the  works 
mentioned  by  St.  Jerome  have  reached  us,  De  Trinitate  and  De 
cibis  iudaicis,  though  the  manuscripts  attribute  them  to  Tertullian 
instead  of  Novatian.  A  number  of  works  formerly  current  under 
the  name  of  Cyprian  have  recently  been  claimed  for  Novatian.  Among 
them  the  De  spectaculis  and  De  bono  pudicitiae  (§  51,  6  d — e)  are 
rightly  adjudged  to  him;  not  so,  however,  Quod  idola  dii  non  sint 
(§51,  4)  and  the  sermons  De  laude  martyrii  and  Adversus  Iudaeos 
(§  51,  6  a — b).  Weyman  holds  that  he  is  the  author  of  the  Trac- 
tatus  Origenis  de  libris  SS.  Scripturarum,  disovered  in   1900. 

The  De  Trinitate  and  De  cibis  Iudaicis  were  first  printed  in  the  edition 
of  Tertullian  at  Paris  in  1545  by  M.  Mesnartius  (J.  Gangneius).  They 
were  also  printed,  apart  from  the  works  of  Tertullian,  by  E.  Welc/wian, 
Oxford,  1724,  and  J.  Jackson,  London,  1728.  The  latter  edition  is  re- 
produced in  Gallandij  Bibl.  vet.  Patr.,  Venice,  1767,  iii.  285 — 323  (cf.  xvi 
to  xix),  and  in  Migne,  PL.,  iii. 861 — 970. 

3.  DE  TRINITATE.  DE  CIBIS  JUDAICIS.  —  In  contents  and  form 
the  De  Trinitate  is  a  work  of  superior  merit.  In  close  adherence  to 
St.  Irenseus  of  Lyons  the  author  treats  of  God  the  Omnipotent  Father 
(cc.  1 — 8),  at  greater  length  of  the  Son,  of  His  divinity,  His  humanity, 
and  His  personal  distinction  from  the  Father  (cc.  9 — 28),  and  very  briefly 
concerning  the  Holy  Ghost  (c.  29).  Though  it  was  soon  afterwards 
held  to  be  a  work  either  of  Tertullian  or  of  Cyprian  6,  it  certainly  came 
from  the  hand  of  Novatian 7,  nor  is  it  an  extract  from  the  Adversus 
Praxeam  of  Tertullian 8.  It  was  probably  composed  before  the  out- 
break of  his  schism  and  even  before  the  persecution  of  Decius.  The 
De  Cibis  Iudaicis  is  a  work  addressed  to  the  Novatian  community 
in  Rome,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  how  certain  foods  were  de- 
clared unclean  by  the  Mosaic  law  in  order  to  withdraw  the  Jews 
from  the  sins  and  vices  symbolized  by  those  animals.  The  Christian, 
however,    apart    from    the    precept  of  temperance,    is  bound  only  to 

1  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  43.  2  Ep.  55,    16  24. 

3  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.   70;  cf.  Ep.  36,    1.  4  Ep.    10,   3. 

5  Socr.,  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.   28.  6  Rufin.,  De  adult,  libr.  Orig. 

7  Hier.,  Contra  Ruf.,  ii.    19.  8  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.   70. 


222  FIRST   PERIOD.      FIFTH    SECTION. 

avoid  the  use  of  meats  sacrificed  to  idols.  Occasional  reminiscences 
of  Seneca  are  worthy  of  note.  We  learn  from  the  writer  (c.  i)  who, 
probably  because  of  some  persecution  by  Gahus  and  Volusianus  or 
by  Valerianus,  dwelt  far  from  (Rome),  that  in  two  former  letters 
he  had  expressed  his  opinions  on  the  true  circumcision  and  the  true 
sabbath 1. 

For  the  De  Trinitate  see  H.  Hagemann,  Die  Römische  Kirche  und  ihr 
Einfluß  auf  Disziplin  und  Dogma,  Freiburg,  1864,  pp.  371 — 411  (according 
to  Hagemann  the  work  is  not  from  the  pen  of  Novatian);  J.  Quarry,  in 
Hermathena  (1897),  no.  23,  pp.  36 — 70,  thinks  that  it  is  a  version  from 
the  Greek  and  that  the  original  was  written  by  Hippolytus;  G.  Landgraf 
and  C.  Weyman,  in  Archiv  f.  latein.  Lexikogr.  u.  Gramm.  (1898 — 1900), 
xi.  221 — 249,  have  given  us  an  excellent  edition  of  De  cibis  Iudaicis. 
Th.  M.  Wehofer,  Sprachliche  Eigentümlichkeiten  des  klassischen  Juristen- 
lateins  in  Novatians  Briefen,  in  Wiener  Studien  (1901),  xxiii.   269 — 275. 

4.  TRACTATUS  DE  LIBRIS  SS.  SCRIPTURARUM.  —  Under  the  name 
of  Origen  twenty  homilies  have  reached  us  in  an  Orleans  manuscript 
of  the  tenth  and  in  another  of  St.  Omer  belonging  to  the  twelfth 
century.  Their  subject-matter,  with  the  exception  of  the  last  (on 
the  miracle  of  Pentecost,  Acts  ii),  is  taken  from  the  Old-Testament. 
BatifTol,  who  discovered  and  edited  them,  accepted  the  evidence  of 
the  manuscripts;  according  to  him  the  homilies  were  really  com- 
posed or  delivered  by  Origen,  and  Victorinus  of  Pettau  (§  58,  1), 
translated  them  into  Latin,  and  perhaps  revised  them.  When  con- 
fronted with  the  vigorous  refutation  in  the  seventeenth  homily  of 
Origen's  peculiar  denial  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  BatifTol  re- 
plied that  the  translator  had  simply  interpolated  the  text  of  the 
original,  using  for  that  purpose  the  De  resurrectione  camis  of  Ter- 
tullian.  Weyman  has  shown  that  the  Latin  text  is  original  and  not 
a  version.  A  close  similarity  of  style  and  diction  suggests  Novatian; 
on  the  other  hand  the  Trinitarian  doctrine  of  these  homilies  (ed. 
Batiffol,  33  67  157)  seems  to  indicate  a  post-Nicene  composition. 
Dom  Morin   suggests   as   author   the  Luciferian  Gregory   of  Eliberis 

(§  87, 4). 

Tractattds  Origenis  de  libris  SS.  Scripturarum  detexit  et  edidit  P.  Batiffol 
sociatis  curis  A.  Wilmart ,  Paris,  1900;  C.  Weyman,  in  Archiv  für  latein. 
Lexikogr.  u.  Gramm.  (1898 — 1900),  xi.  467  f.  545 — 576;  G.  Morin,  in 
Revue  d'histoire  et  de  litterature  relig.  (iqoo),  v.  145 — 161;  Batiffol,  in 
Bulletin  de  litterature  ecclesiastique  (1900),  pp.  190 — 197  (against  Morin) ; 
283 — 297  (against  Weyman);  Funk,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1900),  lxxxii. 
534 — 544't  B.  C.  Butler,  The  New  Tractatus  Origenis,  in  Journal  of  Theol. 
Studies  (1901),  ii.  113 — 121  254 — 262  (non  liquet,  written  by  an  anonymous 
hand  in  the  fifth  or  the  sixth  century);  J.  Haussleiter,  Novatians  Predigt 
über  die  Kundschafter  (n.  13)  in  direkter  Überlieferung  und  in  einer  Be- 
arbeitung des  Cäsarius  von  Arles,  in  Neue  kirehl.  Zeitschrift  (1902),  xiii. 
119— 143;  P.  Batiffol,  in  Civiltä  Cattolica,  series  XVIII  (1902),  v.  589,  is 

1  Cf.  the  titles  De  sabbato  and  De  circumeisione,    in  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,    c.   70. 


§    56.      PAPAL    LETTERS.  223 

now  of  opinion  that  it  was  written  by  a  follower  of  Novatian  towards  the 
end  of  the  persecutions  (ca.  300—313).  In  the  Revue  Benedictine  (1902), 
xix,  226 — 245,  G.  Morin  gives  up  Gregory  of  Eliberis,  but  only  to  look 
for  a  still  later  author,  somewhere  in  the  fifth  century.  H.  Jordan,  Die 
Theologie  der  neuentdeckten  Predigten  Novatians,  Greifswald,  1902; 
P.  Batiffol,  in  Revue  Biblique  (1903),  xii.  81 — 93;  H.  Jordan,  Melito  und 
Novitian,  in  Archiv  für  latein.  Lexikogr.  und  Grammatik  (1902),  xii.  59 
to  68;  J.  Baer ,  De  operibus  Fastidii  etc.  (cf.  §  94,  16);  E.  C.  Butler, 
An  Hippolytus-Fragment  and  a  Word  on  the  Tractatus  Origenis,  in  Zeit- 
schrift für  die  neutestamentl.  Wissensch.  (1903),  iv.  79 — 87.  The  so-called 
Tractatus  Origenis,  in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1905),  vi.  587 — 599. 

§  56.    Papal  Letters. 

1.  ST.  CALLIXTUS  (21 7— 222).  —  Out  of  the  references  in  the  De 
pudicitia  of  Tertullian  (§  50,  5)  Rolffs  undertook,  with  doubtful 
success,  to  restore  the  text  of  the  penitential  or  indulgence  edict  in 
which  Pope  Callixtus  promised  forgiveness  and  reconciliation  to 
adulterers  and  fornicators,  conditionally  on  the  performance  of  public 
penance.  It  is  uncertain  whether  and  to  what  extent  the  other 
decrees  of  this  pope  in  matters  of  discipline  and  dogma  (§  54,  1) 
were  reduced  to  writing. 

E.  Rolffs,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  (1893),  xi.  3;  P.  Batiffol,  Le 
decret  de  Calliste,  in  Etudes  d'hist.  et  de  theol.  positive,  Paris,  1902, 
pp.  69 — no. 

2.  st.  pontianus  (230 — 235).  —  A  Roman  synod  of  231  or  232  con- 
firmed the  decrees  of  the  two  Alexandrine  synods  condemnatory  of  Origen 
[Hier.,  Ep.  ^$,  4).  It  is  probable  that  Pope  Pontianus  communicated  the 
action  of  the  Roman  synod  in  a  letter  to  Bishop  Demetrius  of  Alexandria. 

3.  ST.  FABIANUS  (236 — 250).  —  This  pope  wrote  a  letter  (litteris) 
in  approval  of  the  action  of  a  great  Numidian  synod  concerning 
Privatus,  bishop  of  Lambesa  in  Numidia 1. 

For  letters  of  the  Roman  clergy  during  the  vacancy  of  the  see  from 
Jan.  250  to  March  251   cf.  §  51,  5c;  §  55,   1. 

4.  ST.  CORNELIUS  (2  5 1 — 253).  —  Amidst  the  letters  of  St.  Cy- 
prian 2  are  two  from  Cornelius  addressed  to  the  former  concerning  the 
schism  of  Novatian.  At  least  five  letters  of  Cornelius  to  Cyprian  are 
lost3.  Three  letters  to  Fabius,  bishop  of  Antioch4,  and  one  to 
Dionysius,  bishop  of  Alexandria5,  dealt  with  the  same  schism,  but 
were  certainly  written  in  Greek.  Eusebius6  has  saved  for  us  some 
excerpts  from  the  third  letter  to  Fabius. 

P.  Constant,  Epist.  Rom.  Pont.,  Paris,  1721,  i.  125—206;  Routh, 
Reliquiae  sacrae,   2.  ed.,    iii.   11  —  89.     For  genuine  and  spurious   material 

1  Cypr.,  Ep.   59,    10.  2  Ep.  49   50. 

3  Cypr.,   Ep.  45,    1  ;  48,    1;   50;   59,    1—2. 

4  Eus.,  Hist.  eccl. ,  vi.  43,  3—4;  incorrectly  given  as  four  letters,  in  Hier.,  De 
viris  ill.,  c.  66. 

5  Ens.,  1.  c,  vi.  46,   3.  G  lb  ,  vi.  43,   5—22. 


224  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

cf.  Migne,  PL.,  iii.  675 — 848;  G.  Mercati,  D'alcuni  miovi  sussidii  per  la 
critica  del  testo  di  S.  Cipriano,  Rome,  1899,  pp.  72 — 86:  «Le  lettere  di 
S.  Cornelio  Papa»  and  (pp.  84 — 86)  a  new  edition  of  the  same  according 
to  important  readings  of  the  Verona  Codex.  It  has  been  mentioned  above 
(§  51,  6)  that  L.  Nelke  holds  Cornelius  to  be  the  author  of  Ad  Novatianum. 

5.  st.  lucius  1.  (253 — 254).  —  St.  Cyprian  mentions  (Ep.  68,  5)  one 
or  more  letters  of  St.  Lucius  concerning  the  treatment  of  those  who  had 
apostatized  in  the  persecutions. 

6.  ST.  STEPHEN  I.  (254 — 257).  —  Stephen  wrote  to  the  churches 
in  Syria  and  Arabia1,  also  in  consequence  of  the  controversy  on 
heretical  baptism  to  the  bishop  of  Asia  Minor2,  and  to  Cyprian3. 
It  has  been  conjectured  from  passages  in  Cyprian4  and  Firmilian  of 
Caesarea5  that  he  wrote  other  letters.  We  possess  only  his  famous 
decision  on  the  baptism  of  heretics  in  the  letter  addressed  to  Cyprian 6 
(cf.  §  Si.  i)- 

Coustant ,  1.  c. ,  i.  209 — 256;  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Lit.,  i. 
656-658. 

7.  st.  sixtus  11.  (257 — 258).  —  It  is  very  probable  that  Sixtus  also  wrote 
letters  on  the  question  of  heretical  baptism.  Concerning  the  thesis  of 
Harnack  that  Sixtus  is  the  author  of  the  pseudo-Cyprianic  Ad  Novatianum 
see  §  51,  6  f.  In  the  fourth  century  a  collection  of  moral  apophthegms, 
translated  into  Latin  by  Rufmus  of  Aquileja,  were  believed  by  many  to 
be  the  work  of  Pope  Sixtus.  They  are  a  later  adoptation  by  some  Chris- 
tian of  a.  work  ofSextus  the  Pythagorean  (not  so  Hier.,  Ep.  33,  3).  For 
recent  editions  of  Rufmus'  version  see  J.  Gildemeister,  Sexti  sententiarum 
recensiones,  Bonn,  1873;  A.  Elter,  Gnomica,  Leipzig,  1892,  i.  For  the 
other  works  attributed  to  Sixtus  see  Harnack,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen 
(1895),  xm-  l>  ^4  f- 

8.  ST.  DIONYSIUS  (259— 268).  —  On  the  subjects  of  Sabellianism 
and  Subordinationism  (Arianism)  pope  Dionysius  addressed  two  letters 
to  Dionysius  of  Alexandria7  (cf.  §  40,  3).  St.  Athanasius  has  pre- 
served8 a  precious  fragment  of  the  first  letter,  or  more  properly 
dogmatic  Encyclical.  The  pope  also  wrote  a  letter  of  consolation  to 
the  church  of  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia9. 

Constant,  1.  c,  i.  269 — 292 ;  Routh,  1.  c,  iii.  369—403.  Genuine,  and 
spurious  material  in  Migne,  PL.,  v.  99 — 136.  For  the  doctrinal  letters  to 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria  see  H  Hagemann,  Die  Römische  Kirche,  Frei- 
burg,  1864,  pp.  432—453. 

9.  st.  Felix  i.  (269—274).  —  The  letter  of  St.  Felix  to  Maximus,  bishop 
of  Alexandria,  and  his  clergy,  a  passage  of  which  was  read  at  the  council 
of  Ephesus  in  431  (Mansi,  SS.  Concil.  Coll.,  iv.  11 88)  was  very  probably 
the  work  of  an  Apollinarist  forger. 

1  Dion.  Alex.,  in  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.   5,   2. 

2  Ib.,  vii.   5,  4;   Cypr.,  Ep.   75,   25.  3  Cypr.,  Ep.    74   75. 
4  Ep.  67,   5;  68.             5  Ib.,  75,  25.  6  Ib.,   74,   1. 

7  Äthan.,  Ep.  de  sent.  Dionys.,   c.    13. 

8  Ep.  de  deer.  Nye.  syn.,   c.   26.  9  Basil.  Mag?i.,  Ep.   70. 


§    57-      COMMODIAN.  22  5 

Constant,  1.  c,  i.  291—298,  defends  this  fragment  as  genuine;  it  is 
pronounced  spurious  by  Caspari ,  Alte  und  neue  Quellen  zur  Gesch.  des 
Taufsymbols,  Christiania,  1879,  PP-  m— 123.  See  Harnack,  Gesch.  der 
altchristl.  Lit.,  i.  659  f. 

10.  ST.  MILTIADES  (311— 314).  —  Either  Miltiades,  or  the  Roman 
synod  of  Oct.  313,  wrote  a  letter  to  Constantine  concerning  the 
Donatist  schism;  it  is  referred  to  in  a  letter  of  the  Emperor1. 

C.    OTHER  WESTERN  WRITERS. 
§  57.     Commodian. 

1.  HIS  LIFE.  —  Only  his  own  works  make  this  writer  known  to 
us ;  even  the  account  of  him  in  Gennadius 2  is  taken  from  his  writings. 
He  was  brought  up  as  a  heathen,  but  embraced  the  Christian  faith 
after  reading  the  Scriptures,  especially  the  Old  Testament;  he  had 
probably  been  a  Jewish  proselyte  at  an  earlier  date.  The  eighth-cen- 
tury codex  of  his  Carmen  apologeticum  calls  him  sanctus  episcopus. 
His  language  shows  that  he  had  lived  in  the  Latin  West,  though  he 
was  probably  born  at  Gaza  in  Palestine3.  His  extant  works,  it  is 
conjectured,  were  written  about  250  or  a  little  later. 

G.  Boissier ,  Commodien,  Paris,  1886;  Freppel,  Commodien,  Arnobe, 
Lactance,  Paris,  1893,  pp.  1 — 27.  His  two  works  were  edited  by  E.  Ludwig, 
Leipzig,  1877 — 1878,  and  B.  Dombart  (1887),  Vienna,  (Corpus  script, 
eccles.  Lat. ,  xv).  The  preparatory  labors  of  Dombart  are  found  in  the 
following  reviews:  Zeitschr.  für  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1879),  xxn-  374 — 3%9\ 
Blätter  für  das  bayer.  Gymn.-  und  Realschulwesen  (1880),  xvi.  341 — 351; 
Sitzungsberichte  der  phil.-hist.  Kl.  der  k.  Akad.  der  Wissenschaft  zu  Wien 
(1880),  xcvi.  447 — 473;  (1884),  cvii.  713 — 802.  H.  Brewer,  in  Zeitschr.  für 
kath.  Theol.  (1899),  xxiii.  759  —  763,  defended  a  singular  opinion  con- 
cerning the  date  of  the  writings  of  Commodian  («about  458  to  466»); 
G.  S.  Ramundo ,  in  Archivio  della  Soc.  Romana  di  Storia  Patria  (1901), 
xxiv.  373 — 391,  and  in  Scritti  vari  di  filologia  a  Ernesto  Monaci,  Rome, 
1902,  pp.  215 — 229  (about  the  time  of  Julian  the  Apostate). 

2.  INSTRUCTIONES.  —  The  Instructiones  per  litter  as  versuum 
primas  are  a  collection  in  two  books  of  eighty  acrostic  poems,  un- 
equal in  length.  The  first  book  is  written  against  Jews  and  heathens, 
scoffs  at  the  heathen  mythologies,  reprehends  the  depraved  manners 
of  the  heathens  and  the  stubbornness  of  the  Jews,  and  closes  with 
a  threatening  reference  to  the  Last  Judgment4.  The  second  book 
is  addressed  to  the  Christians,  with  the  intention  of  urging  all,  cate- 
chumens and  faithful,  lay  and  cleric,  poor  and  rich,  to  the  fulfilling 
of  their  duties  and  the  avoidance  of  sin.  The  text  has  come  down 
in  a  very  corrupt   condition,    the    diction  is   extremely  popular,    and 

1  Roulh,  Reliquiae  sacrae,   2.   ed.,  iv.   297.  2  De  viris  ill.,   c.    15. 

3  Gaseus,  Instr.,   ii.   39. 

4  In  spite  of  the  manuscripts  Acrostics  42 — 45  belong  not  to  the  second,  but  to 
the  first  book. 

Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  1 5 


226  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

the  metre,  a  very  peculiar  hexameter,  governed  alternately  by  quan- 
tity and  by  accent.  All  the  poems  are  acrostic  (i.  28,  is  both 
acrostic  and  telestic),  i.  e.  the  initial  letters  of  the  successive  verses 
form  words  expressive  of  the  theme  and  the  title  of  the  poem.  The 
result  of  so  fantastic  a  plan  was  necessarily  a  stiff  and  cramped 
diction,  almost  wooden  in  its  rigidity.  His  biblical  quotations  are 
taken  from  St.  Cyprian's  Testimonia  adversus  Judaeos.  He  seems 
also  to  have  been  acquainted  with  Minucius  Felix,  Tertullian,  and 
the   «Shepherd»   of  Hermas. 

Editio  princeps,  by  N.  Rigaltius,  Toul,  1649  (Migne,  PL.,  v).  For  the 
editions  of  Ludwig  and  Dombart  see  §  57,  1.  Fr.  Haussen,  De  arte 
metrica  Commodiani,  in  Dissert,  philol.  Argentorat.  sei.  (1881),  v.  1 — 90; 
W.  Meyer,  Der  Versbau  Commodians,  in  Denkschriften  der  k.  bayer.  Akad. 
der  Wissensch. ,  Abhandlungen  der  philos.-philol.  Kl.  (1885),  xvii.  2,  288 
to  307. 

3.  CARMEN  APOLOGETICUM.  —  Quite  similar  in  its  scope  to  the 
first  book  of  Instructiones  is  the  poem  that  its  original  editor  entitled 
Carmen  apologeticum.  It  contains  1060  verses,  several  of  which  are 
either  fragmentary  or  illegible,  and  it  is  known  to  us  through  a 
single  eighth-century  manuscript.  A  prolix  introduction  (vv.  1 — 88) 
is  followed  by  instructions  on  the  nature  of  God,  the  beginnings  of 
redemption  (89 — 276),  the  person  of  the  Savior  and  the  significance 
of  the  names  of  Father  and  Son  (277 — 578).  Then  come  stern  warn- 
ings to  the  heathens  (579 — 616)  and  to  the  Jews  (617 — 790).  In 
its  closing  lines  the  poem  rises  to  its  highest  perfection  in  a  formal 
description  of  the  Last  Judgment  (791  — 1060).  The  author  is  not 
mentioned  in  the  codex,  but  intrinsic  evidence  points  to  the  author 
of  the  Instructiones.  The  mention  of  the  seventh  persecution  and  of 
the  passage  of  the  Danube  by  the  Goths  (vv.  808  ff.)  suggests  the 
fifth  decade  of  the  third  century.  The  metre  is  that  of  the  Instruc- 
tiones, though  the  diction,  freed  from  the  bonds  of  the  acrostic, 
is  more  fluent  and  lively. 

The  editio  princeps  is  that  of  J.  B.  Pitra ,  Spicil.  Solesm.  (1852),  i. ; 
cf.  (1858),  iv.  222  —  224.  It  was  also  edited  by  J.  H.  Rönsch,  in  Zeitschr. 
für  die  hist.  Theol.  (1872),  xlii.  163 — 302.  For  the  editions  of  Ludwig  and 
Dombart  see  §  57,  1.  A.  Ebert,  Commodians  Carmen  apol.,  in  Abhand- 
lungen der  k.  sächs.  Gesellsch.  der  Wissensch.  phil.-hist.  Kl.  (1870),  v.  387 
to  420;  C.  Leimbach,  Über  Commodians  «Carmen  apol.  adv.  Gentes  et 
Iudaeos»  (Progr.),  Schmalkalden ,  187 1;  B.  Aubd,  L'Eglise  et  l'Etat  dans 
la  seconde  moitie  du  IIP  siecle  [249 — 284],  Paris,   1885,  pp.  517 — 544. 

4.  RETROSPECT.  —  There  is  little  to  attract  us  in  the  first  Christian 
poet,  from  the  standpoint  of  literary  form.  The  verse  clings  prosaical- 
ly to  the  earth;  only  occasionally,  especially  in  the  eschatological 
parts,  does  it  manifest  a  certain  afflatus  and  develop  a  degree  of 
majesty.  The  contents  of  his  writings  betrays  a  practical  and  sagacious 
ecclesiastic,    filled    with    benevolent    zeal,    but    endowed    with    slight 


§    58.      VICTORINUS    OF    PETTAU   AND    RETICIUS    OF    AUTUN.  227 

theological  culture.  A  very  gross  form  of  Chiliasm  is  exhibited  in  both 
works1.  His  doctrine  on  God,  on  the  Trinity,  or  rather  his  theo- 
dicea,  scarcely  outlined  in  the  Instructions,  appears  in  the  Carmen 
apologeticum  (vv.  89  fr.  277  fr.  771  ff.)  as  downright  Monarchianism 
or  Patripassianism. 

For  the  teaching  of  Commodian  on  the  Trinity  see  J.  L.  Jacobi,  in 
Zeitschr.  für  christl.  Wissensch.  und  christl.  Leben  (1853),  iv.  203 — 209. 
His  eschatology  is  discussed  by  L.  Atzberger,  Gesch.  der  christl.  Eschato- 
logie,  Freiburg,  1896,  pp.  555—566. 

§  58.    Victorinus  of  Pettau  and  Reticius  of  Autun. 

I.  VICTORINUS  OF  PETTAU.  —  Victorinus,  the  earliest  exegete  of 
the  Latin  Church,  was  bishop  of  Petabio  or  Petavio  (Pettau  in  Steier- 
mark) in  the  closing  years  of  the  third  century,  and  died  a  martyr 
in  the  persecution  of  Diocletian2.  The  statement  of  Cassiodorus3 
that  Victorinus  was  a  rhetorician  before  he  became  a  bishop,  is  the 
result  of  his  confounding  our  writer  with  C.  Marius  Victorinus  Afer, 
a  Roman  rhetorician  of  the  fourth  century.  Victorinus  of  Pettau 
was  probably  a  Greek  by  birth4,  though,  so  far  as  is  known,  he 
wrote  only  in  Latin.  He  left  commentaries  on  the  first  three  books 
of  the  Pentateuch,  on  Ecclesiastes  and  the  Canticle  of  canticles, 
Isaias,  Ezechiel  and  Habacuc,  St.  Matthew  and  the  Apocalypse,  also 
a  work  Adversum  omnes  haereses**.  These  works  do  not  exhibit 
either  a  cultivated  Latin  style  or  extensive  erudition  6.  In  his  exegesis 
Victorinus  is  a  faithful  disciple  of  Origen,  though  he  gives  proof  of 
independence  and  good  judgment7.  Of  his  exegetical  labors  only 
the  commentary  on  the  Apocalypse  is  known  to  us;  as  early  as 
the  sixteenth  century  it  was  edited  in  two  recensions.  Though  the 
shorter  recension  is  the  basis  of  the  larger  one,  it  is  not  itself  the 
original  text,  but  only  a  revision  of  the  same  by  St.  Jerome.  The  con- 
clusion of  this  commentary,  repudiated  by  Jerome  because  of  its 
decidedly  Chiliastic  doctrine,  was  re-discovered  in  1895  by  Haussleiter. 
Cave  discovered  in  1688  a  Tractatus  Victor ini  de  fabrica  mundi.  It 
may  be  the  work  of  our  Victorinus,  but  if  so  it  belongs  neither  to 
the  commentary  on  Genesis  nor  to  that  on  the  Apocalypse.  The 
work  Adversum  omnes  haereses  has  been  identified ,  but  wrongly, 
with  the  Libellus  adversus  omnes  haereses  printed  with  the  works 
of  Tertullian  (§  50,   8). 

jf.  de  Launoy ,  De  Victorino  episc.  et  mart,  diss.,  Paris,  1653;  2.  ed. 
1664.  Complete  editions:  A.  Rivinus ,  Gotha,  1652;  Gallandi,  Bibl.  vet. 
Patr.  (1768),  iv.  49 — 64;  Migne,  PL.,  v.  281 — 344.    The  longer  recension 

1   Gennad.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.    15.  2  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.   74. 

3  Instit.,  i.   5    7.  i  Hier.,  1.  c. 

5  Hier.,  1.   c. ;  Transl.  hom.   Orig.  in  Luc,  praef. 

ö  Hier.,  Ep.   58,    10;   70,   5.  7  Ib.,  61,   2;   84,   7. 

15* 


228  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

of  the  commentary  on  the  Apocalypse  is  in  Gallandi  and  Migne,  also  in 
the  Bibliotheca  Casinensis  (1894),  v.  1,  Floril.  1 — 21;  the  shorter  one 
e.  g.  in  Max.  Bibl.  vet.  Patr.,  Lyons,  1677,  iii.  414 — 421.  On  the  Chili- 
astic  conclusion  see  J.  Haussleiter,  in  Theol.  Literaturblatt  (1895),  xvi.  193 
to  199,  and  Zeitschr.  für  kirchl.  Wissensch.  und  kirchl.  Leben  (1886),  vii. 
239 — 257;  cf.  Haussleiter,  Der  Aufbau  der  altchristl.  Liter.,  Berlin,  1898, 
pp.  35 — 37;  Beiträge  zur  Würdigung  der  Offenbarung  des  Johannes  und 
ihres  ältesten  lateinischen  Auslegers  Victorinus  von  Pettau,  Greifswald,  1900. 
For  the  De  fabrica  mundi  with  copious  annotationes  cf.  Routh ,  Reliquiae 
sacrae,  2.  ed.,  iii.  451 — 483.  In  general  see  Preuschen,  in  Hawiack,  Gesch. 
d.  altchristl.  Liter.,  i.  731 — 735.  The  De  monogrammate  edited  by  G.  Morin, 
in  Revue  Benedictine  (1903),  xx.  225 — 226,  is  by  some  connected  with 
St.  Jerome's  revision  of  the  commentary  on  the  Apocalypse.  G.  Mercati 
published  from  an  Ambrosian  codex,  and  annotated,  some  fragments  of  a 
Latin  commentary  on  Mt.  xxiv.,  by  an  anonymous  Chiliast,  very  probably 
Victorinus  of  Pettau.  G.  Mercati,  Varia  sacra  (Studi  e  Testi  11),  Rome, 
1903,  pp.  3 — 49;  C.  If.  Turner,  An  Exegetical  Fragment  of  the  Third 
Century,  in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1904),  v.  218;  A.  Souter ,  The 
authorship  of  the  Mercati-Turner  Anecdoton,  in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies 
(1904),  v.  608 — 621;  Dom  G.  Morin,  Notes  sur  Victorin  du  Pettau,  in 
Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1906),  vii.  456 — 459. 

2.  RETICIUS  OF  AUTUN.  —  Reticius,  in  the  reign  of  Constantine 
bishop  of  Augustodunum  (Autun),  the  city  of  the  Aedui,  was  highly 
esteemed  by  all  his  contemporaries  in  Gaul.  He  wrote  a  commentary 
on  the  Canticle  of  canticles  and  a  large  work  against  Novatian  l.  While 
the  diction  of  the  commentary  was  choice  and  pleasing,  it  contained 
many  singular  and  foolish  opinions2.  It  is  perhaps  in  the  work 
against  Novatian  that  St.  Augustine  found  the  remark  of  Reticius 
on  baptism  frequently  cited  by  him3. 

Histoire  litteraire  de  la  France,  Paris,  1733,  i.  2,  59—63.  Acta  SS.  Jul., 
Venice,   1748,  iv.  587 — 589;  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Liter.,  i.  751  f. 

APPENDIX. 

§  59.    The  Acts  of  the  Martyrs. 

I.  PRELIMINARY  REMARK.  —  Narratives  of  martyrdom  have  at 
all  times  specially  fascinated  the  hearts  of  the  faithful.  It  was  custo- 
mary, at  a  very  early  date,  to  celebrate  with  a  liturgical  service  the 
anniversary  of  the  martyr's  death4;  it  was  also  customary  on  such 
occasions  to  read  to  the  Christian  community  a  narrative  of  the 
events  that  culminated  in  so  glorious  a  sacrifice5.  In  the  first 
quarter  of  the  fourth  century  Eusebius  made  a  collection  of  ancient 
«Acts  of  the  martyrs»  now  known  to  us  only  by  quotations6.  Those 
accounts  of  the  earliest  Christian  martyrdoms  which  have  reached  us 

1  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.   82.  2  Hier.,  Ep.  37;   cf.  Ep.   5,   2. 

3  Aug.,  Contra  Iulian,  i.   3,   7  ;  Opus  imperfectum  contra  Iulianum,   i.   55. 

4  Mart.  S.  Polyc,  c.   18,   3.  5  Acta  SS.   Perp.  et  Felic,   cc.    1    21. 
6  Bus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.   15,  47;  v.,  prooem.,   2,  al. 


§  59-  THE  ACTS  OF  THE  MARTYRS.  229 

may  be  divided  into  three  groups.  Some  are  official  documents, 
records  (acta,  gesta)  made  by  the  notaries  of  the  civil  court,  but 
handed  down  in  a  form  calculated  to  edify  the  Christian  reader. 
The  second  group  is  made  up  of  the  narratives  of  those  who  saw 
and  heard  the  details  of  the  martyr's  death  (passiones).  They  are 
lacking  in  official  authenticity,  but  merit  the  closest  attention  of  the 
historian.  The  third  group  is  composed  of  accounts  of  martyrdom, 
put  together  at  a  later  period,  some  of  them  enlarging  partly  and 
partly  ornamenting  the  original  story,  while  others  are  purely  literary 
figments.  We  mention  here  only  such  very  ancient  Acta  as  have 
always  been  held  to  be  genuine  and  trustworthy. 

The  collections  of  Lives  of  saints  and  Acts  of  martyrs  published  by 
B.Mombritius  (about  1476  at  Milan),  by  AI.  Lipo mantis  (155 1 — 1560  at  Venice 
and  Rome),  and  by  L.  Surius  (Cologne,  1570 — 1575,  and  often  since)  were 
all  surpassed  by  the  Acta  Sanctorum  of  the  Jesuit  J.  Bolland  (f  1665), 
and  his  colleagues  known  as  the  Bollandists.  This  noble  enterprise  has 
reached  its  sixtieth  volume,  and  is  not  yet  complete.  Since  1882  it  is  sup- 
plemented by  a  periodical  publication,  the  Analecta  Bollandiana.  Cf.  Biblio- 
theca  hagiographica  graeca  seu  elenchus  vitarum  sanctorum  graece  typis 
impressarum,  edd.  Hagiographi  Bollandiani ,  Brussels,  1895.  Bibliotheca 
hagiographica  latina  antiquae  et  mediae  aetatis,  edd.  Socii  Bollandiani,  Brus- 
sels, 1898  ff.  (now  complete  in  two  volumes  and  a  supplement  1898 — 1899, 
1900 — 1901).  A  compendious  translation,  and  a  continuation  «Les  Petits 
Bollandistes«  which  is  complete  (seventeen  volumes,  with  Appendix  in  three 
volumes)  has  been  published,  Paris,  1888.  A  critical  sifting  of  the  Acts  of 
the  martyrs  of  the  first  four  centuries  was  undertaken  by  the  Benedictine 
Th.  Ruinart:  Acta  primorum  martyrum  sincera  et  selecta,  Paris,  1689;  2.  ed., 
Amsterdam,  17 13;  often  reprinted,  e.  g.  Ratisbon,  1859.  —  ■&•  Le  Blant, 
Les  Actes  des  martyrs,  in  Memoires  de  l'lnst.  Nat.  de  France,  Acad,  des 
inscriptions  et  belles-lettres  (1883),  xxx.  2,  57 — 347.  K  J.  Neumann,  Der 
römische  Staat  und  die  allgmeine  Kirche  bis  auf  Diokletian,  Leipzig,  1890, 
i.  274 — 331:  «Zur  Kritik  der  Acta  Sanctorum».  Preuschen,  in  Harnack, 
Geschichte  der  altchristl.  Literatur,  i.  807 — 834.  —  H.  Achelis,  Die  Martyro- 
logien,  ihre  Geschichte  und  ihr  Wert  (Abhandlungen  der  kgl.  Gesellsch. 
der  Wissensch.  zu  Göttingen,  Berlin,  1900).  O.  v.  Gebhardt,  Acta  marty- 
rum selecta.  Ausgewählte  Märtyrerakten  und  andere  Urkunden  aus  der 
Verfolgungszeit  der  christlichen  Kirche,  Berlin,  1902.  R.  Knopf,  Aus- 
gewählte Märtyrerakten,  Tübingen  and  Leipzig,  1901  (Sammlung  ausgewählter 
kirchen-  und  dogmengeschichtlicher  Quellenschriften,  ed.  by  Krüger, 
series  ii.  2).  H.  Leder q,  Les  martyrs.  Recueil  des  pieces  authentiques  sur 
les  martyrs  depuis  l'origine  du  Christianisme  jusqu'au  xxe  siecle,  Paris,  1902 
to  1904.  i— iii.  B.  Alasia,  Atti  autentici  di  alcuni  santi  martiri  scelti  e 
tradotti,  2  voll.,  Torino,   1863. 

2.  MARTYRIUM  S.  POLYCARPI.  — The  oldest  Acts  that  we  possess 
are  found  in  the  encyclical  letter  of  the  Church  of  Smyrna  concerning 
the  martyrdom,  at  the  age  of  eighty-six,  of  its  bishop  Polycarp.  He 
suffered  with  other  Christians  of  Smyrna,  February  23.,  155.  The 
narrative  is  so  straightforward,  lively  and  emotional  that  there  can 
be  no  suspicion  of  forgery.  Eusebius  incorporated  the  greater  part 
of  it  (cc.  8 — 19,  1)  in  his  Church  History  (iv.  15).    It  was  composed 


230  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

before  the  first  anniversary  of  the  death  of  Polycarp  (c.  18,  3).  In 
the  manuscripts  the  original  text  (cc.  1  —  20)  has  been  enriched  with 
additions  (cc.  21 — 22)  by  later  hands.  An  ancient  Latin  version  has 
also  reached  us,  but  is  paraphrastic  and  carelessly  executed. 

J.  Ussher  was  the  first  to  publish  the  Greek  text,  London,  1647.  It  is 
best  edited  in  the  recent  editions  of  the  Letter  to  the  Philippians  of  St.  Poly- 
carp by  Zahn,  Leipzig,  1876;  Funk,  Tübingen,  1878  1887  1902  (in  the 
last  edition  a  Jerusalem  Codex  S.  Sepulchri  was  first  used);  Lightfoot, 
London,  1885  1889  (cf.  §  10,  2),  and  v.  Gebhardt ,  Acta  etc.  There  is 
also  in  Zahns  edition  a  new  recension  of  the  ancient  Latin  version;  cf. 
A.  Harnack,  Die  Zeit  des  Ignatius,  Leipzig,  1878,  pp.  75 — 90.  For  the 
letter  itself  see  E.  Egli,  Altchristliche  Studien,    Zürich,  1887,   pp.  61 — 79. 

3.  ACTA  SS.  CARPI,  PAPYLI  ET  AGATHONICES.  —  In  the  reign  of 
Marcus  Aurelius  (161 — 180),  very  probably  while  Lucius  Verus  was 
still  his  colleague  (161 — 169),  Carpus,  bishop  ofThyatira,  and  Papylus, 
deacon  of  Thyatira  (?),  were  condemned  to  the  stake,  after  a  steadfast 
confession  of  their  faith.  A  Christian  woman,  Agathonice,  who  stood 
by,  threw  herself  voluntarily  into  the  flames.  The  narrative  is  very 
simple  and  touching,  and  was  evidently  composed  by  an  eye-witness. 
It  is  also  mentioned  by  Eusebius1.  A  longer  recension  that  goes 
back  to  Simeon  Metaphrastes  in  the  tenth  century  wrongly  places 
the  martyrdom  in  the  time  of  Decius. 

The  longer  recension  is  in  Migne,  PG.,  cxv.  105 — 126.  The  original 
text  was  first  published  by  B.  Aubi  from  a  twelfth-century  (?)  manuscript, 
in  Revue  archeologique ,  new  series  (1881),  xlii.  348 — 360,  and  again  in 
l'Eglise  et  l'Etat  dans  la  seconde  moitie  du  IIIe  siecle,  Paris,  1885,  pp.  499 
to  506.  A  new  edition  of  the  same  manuscript  with  commentary  by  Harnack 
is  to  be  found  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  (1888),  iii.  3 — 4  433 — 466; 
and  another  edition  was  made  by  v.  Gebhardt,  Acta  etc. 

4.  ACTA  SS.  JUSTINI  ET  SOCIORUM.  —  Between  163  and  167  the 
Apologist  Justin  and  six  other  Christians  were  cast  into  prison  at 
Rome,  because  of  their  Christian  faith,  by  order  of  Junius  Rusticus, 
prefect  of  the  City;  they  were  scourged  and  beheaded.  Apart  from 
the  beginning  and  the  end,  these  brief  acts,  apparently  unknown  to 
Eusebius,  are  a  copy  of  the  official  records. 

The  Greek  text  was  first  published  in  the  Acta  Sanctorum  Jun.,  Ant- 
werp, 1695,  Venice,  1741,  i.  20 — 21;  later  among  the  works  of  Justin, 
in  Migne,  PG.,  vi.  1565— 1572;  cf.  1795  f.,  and  better  in  v.  Otto,  Corpus 
apol.  christ,  Jena,  1879,  m-  3>  2^6 — 279;  cf.  xlvi — 1;  also  in  v.  Gebhardt, 
Acta  etc.  P.  Franchi  de'  C av alier i ,  Note  agiografiche.  I:  Gli  Atti  del 
martirio  di  S.  Ariadne.  II :  Gli  Atti  di  S.  Giustino,  in  Studi  e  Testi,  Rome, 
1902,  viii. 

5.  EPISTOLA  ECCLESIARUM  VIENNENSIS  ET  LUGDUNENSIS.  —  In 
the   seventeenth   year   of  Marcus  Aurelius    (177 — 178)    the  Christian 

1  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.   15,   48. 


§    59-      THE    ACTS    0F   THE    MARTYRS.  23  I 

community  of  Lyons  was  tried  by  a  severe  persecution  *.  When  its 
fury  had  been  spent,  the  Christians  of  Lyons  and  Vienne  sent  to  the 
brethren  in  Asia  Minor  a  minute  and  picturesque  narrative  of  the 
terrible  events  they  had  survived.  Lengthy  fragments,  all  too  brief 
to  satisfy  our  curiosity,  have  been  saved  for  us  in  the  Church  History 
of  Eusebius  (v.  I — 4). 

These  fragments  may  also  be  found  in  Routh,  Reliquiae  sacrae,  2.  ed., 
Oxford,  1846,  i.  293—371,  and  in  v.  Gebhardt ,  Acta  etc.  —  O.  Hirsch- 
feld, Zm  Geschichte  des  Christentums  in  Lugdunum  vor  Konstantin,  in 
Sitzungsberichte  der  kgl.  preussischen  Akad.  der  Wissensch.  zu  Berlin,  1895, 
381—409. 

6.  ACTA  MARTYRUM  SCILITANORUM.  —  The  first  fruits  of  the 
martyrs  of  Africa  were  twelve  men  and  women  of  Scili  in  Numidia. 
They  appeared  before  the  proconsul,  P.  Vigellius  Saturninus,  at  Carthage 
July  17.,  180,  and  were  condemned  as  Christians  to  die  by  de- 
capitation. Their  Acts  have  reached  us  in  three  Latin  and  one  Greek 
recension.  The  shortest  of  the  Latin  texts  offers  the  substance  of  the 
court-records  of  the  trial,  while  the  other  two  give  evidence  of  later 
changes  and  additions.    The  Greek  text  is  a  version  of  the  Latin. 

For  the  three  Latin  recensions  cf.  Ruinart,  1.  c.  (§  59,  1),  2.  ed.,  pp.  84 
to  89,  the  shortest  and  oldest  one  is  given  there  in  fragmentary  condition. 
H.  Usener  first  published  the  Greek  text,  in  Index  Schol.  Bonn,  per  menses 
aest.  a.  1881.  All  previously  (to  1881)  known  texts  are  printed  by  B.  Aube, 
Etude  sur  un  nouveau  texte  des  Actes  des  martyrs  Scillitains,  Paris,  1881. 
The  shortest  and  oldest  Latin  text  is  found  complete,  in  Analecta  Bolland. 
(1889),  viii.  5 — 8;  cf.  (1897),  xvi.  64  f.  A  complete  collection  of  all  re- 
lative texts  is  given  by  J.  A.  Robinson,  in  Texts  and  Studies  (1891),  i.  2, 
104 — i2i,  also  in  v.  Gebhardt,  Acta  etc.  Cf.  Neumann,  1.  c.  (see  §  59,  1), 
i.  71 — 74  284 — 286;  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  (1892),  ii.  2, 
992—997. 

7.  ACTA  S.  APOLLONII.  —  Eusebius  relates  in  his  Church  History 
(v.  21)  that  during  the  reign  of  Commodus  (180 — 192)  a  highly 
cultured  and  esteemed  Christian  of  Rome,  named  Apollonius,  was 
beheaded  after  an  eloquent  defence  of  his  faith  before  the  praefectus 
praelorio  Perennis  (180 — 185)  and  the  Roman  Senate.  It  was  easy 
to  recognize  mere  conjecture  in  the  additional  details  given  by 
St.  Jerome2.  Very  doubtful,  in  particular,  seemed  the  statement  that 
Apollonius  had  read  before  the  Senate  an  excellent  work  (insigne 
volumen)  in  defence  of  his  faith.  It  was  therefore  a  matter  of  general 
surprise  when  Conybeare  discovered  (1893)  an  Armenian  text  of  the 
«Martyrdom  of  S.  Apollonius  the  Ascetic».  Shortly  after  the  Bol- 
landists  made  known  a  Greek  text  of  the  «Martyrdom  of  the  holy 
and  celebrated  apostle  Apollos»  (sic).  Both  texts  contain  the  Acts 
of  Apollonius  as  known  to  Eusebius,  though  more  or  less  disfigured 
by  later  changes  and  additions.    Given  the  actual  state  of  the  Acts, 

1  Ib.,  v.,  prooem.,    1.  2  De  viris  ill.,  c.  42   53;  Ep.   70,  4. 


2  32  FIRST    PERIOD.       FIFTH    SECTION. 

it  is  not  easy  to  unravel  with  clearness  the  course  of  the  trial,  nor  to 
discern  the  role  which  fell  to  the  Senate.  The  dTioAoyia  referred  to 
by  Eusebius  must  have  been  made  up  of  the  questions  of  the  judge 
Perennis  and  the  replies  of  Apollonius.  The  martyr  outlines  broadly 
the  teachings  of  Christian  faith  and  morality.  His  exposition  is  re- 
markable for  its  firmness  and  dignity  as  well  as  for  the  candor  of 
mind  and  the  tranquillity  of  spirit  that  it  reveals. 

The  Armenian  «Martyrium»  is  found  in  the  Armenian  collection  of 
the  Acts  of  the  Martyrs  published  at  Venice  in  1874  by  the  Mechitarists 
(i.  138 — 143).  F.  C.  Conybeare  published  an  English  version  in  The  Guar- 
dian, June  18.,  1893,  and  again  in  his  «Apology  and  Acts  of  Apollonius 
and  other  monuments  of  early  Christianity,  London,  1894;  2.  ed.  1896. 
A  German  version  by  Bur  char di  was  communicated  by  Harnack ,  in 
Sitzungsberichte  der  kgl.  preussischen  Akad.  der  Wissensch.  zu  Berlin,  1893, 
pp.  721 — 746.  The  Bollandists  published  the  Greek  text  of  the  «Mar- 
tyrium» from  a  cod.  Paris,  (saec.  xi  vel  xii),  in  Anal.  Bolland.  (1895),  xiv. 
284 — 294.  F.  Th.  Klette  published  a  new  edition  (with  a  German  version 
from  the  same  Greek  codex,  together  with  Burchardi's  translation  of  the 
Armenian  text,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  (1897),  xv.  2,  91  ff . ■  Max  Prinz 
von  Sachsen,  Der  heilige  Märtyrer  Apollonius  von  Rom,  historisch-kritische 
Studie,  Mainz,  1903;  R.  Seeberg,  in  Neue  kirchl.  Zeitschr.  (1893),  iv.  836 
to  872;  Th.  Mommsen ,  in  Sitzungsber. ,  Berlin,  1894,  pp.  497 — 503; 
A.  Hilgenfeld,  in  Zeitschr.  für  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1894),  xxxvii.  58 — 91  \ 
(1898),  xli.  185 — 250;  R.  Seeberg,  in  Theol.  Literaturblatt  (1900),  xxi.  225  f.; 
y.  Geffcken,  Die  Acta  Apollonii,  in  Nachrichten  von  der  kgl.  Gesellsch. 
der  Wissensch.  in  Gott.,  phil.-hist.  Kl.  (1904),  iii.  v.  Gebhardt  gives  in  his 
«Acta»  the  Greek  text  and  the  version  of  Burchardi. 

8.  ACTA  SS.  PERPETUAE  ET  FELICITATIS.  —  On  March  7.,  202  or 
203,  probably  at  Carthage  in  Roman  Africa  and  not  at  Thuburbo, 
five  catechumens  died  for  their  faith.  They  were  Vibia  Perpetua, 
a  youthful  matron  of  good  social  standing,  Saturninus  and  Saturus, 
and  two  slaves  Felicitas  and  Revocatus.  With  the  aid  of  the  auto- 
graph notes  left  by  St.  Perpetua  and  St.  Saturus  an  eye-witness  com- 
posed a  forcible  and  animated  narrative  of  their  martyrdom  that 
has  always  been  looked  on  as  the  pearl  of  this  species  of  literature. 
We  possess,  in  addition  to  the  original  Latin,  the  text  of  an  ancient 
Greek  version ;  a  second,  considerably  shorter,  Latin  text  is  notably 
a  later  excerpt,  probably  taken  from  the  Greek  version.  While  it 
is  true  that  the  author  or  editor  of  these  Acts  belonged  to  the 
party  of  the  Montanists  (cc.  1  21)  and  was  probably  none  other 
than  Tertullian1,  there  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  the  martyrs 
themselves  were  Montanists.  As  late  as  the  fifth  century  these  Acts 
where  still  read  at  Hippo  on  the  anniversary  of  the  martyrs,  in  natali 
martyrum  Perpetuae  et  Felicitatis2. 

For  the  original  Latin  text  see  Ruinart,  1.  c,  2.  ed.,  pp.  90 — 119; 
Migne ,    PL.,    iii.   13—60-    cf.    pp.  61 — 170.     The    shorter  Latin   text   was 

1   Tert.,  De  anima,  c.  55.  2  Aug.,  Serm.  280—282. 


§  59-   THE  ACTS  OF  THE  MARTYRS.  233 

edited  by  B.  Aubt,  in  1881 ;  the  ancient  Greek  version  by  J.  R.  Harris 
and  S.  K.  Gifford,  in  1890.  A  good  edition  of  all  three  texts  is  that  of 
J.  A.  Robinson,  The  Passion  of  St.  Perpetua,  Cambridge,  1901,  in  Texts  and 
Studies,  i.  2.  Equally  good  is  the  edition  of  the  two  longer  texts  by 
P.  Franchi  de'  Cavalieri ,  Passio  Ss.  Perpetuae  et  Felicitatis,  Rome,  1896 
(Römische  Quartalschr.,  Supplement  5).  In  the  introduction  to  this  study 
Franchi  has  exhibited  the  evidence  in  favor  of  the  priority  of  Latin  text. 
A.  Fillet,  Les  martyrs  d'Afrique:  Histoire  de  S.  Perpe'tue  et  de  ses  com- 
pagnons,  Paris,  1885;  Neumann,  1.  c. ,  i.  171  — 176  299  f.  Cf.  v.  Geb- 
hardt* s  «Acta»  for  both  Greek  and  Latin  texts. 

9.  ACTA  S.  PIONII.  —  Eusebius1  has  left  us  an  account  of  the 
martyrdom  of  St.  Pionius  and  other  Christians  at  Smyrna.  The 
narrative  has  reached  us  in  various  recensions.  While  Eusebius  places 
their  martyrdom  in  the  time  of  the  Antonines,  and  more  particularly 
in  the  reign  of  Marcus  Aurelius,  the  Acts  in  their  present  state  in- 
dicate, with  every  appearance  of  truth,  the  year  250  and  the  reign 
of  Decius. 

They  were  published  by  Ruinart,  2.  ed.,  pp.  137  — 151,  from  an  ancient 
Latin  version.  The  Greek  text  was  made  known  by  O.  v.  Gebhardt  from 
a  cod.  Ven.  Marc.  359,  in  Archiv  für  slavische  Philologie  (1896),  xviii. 
156 — 171,  and  in  his  «Acta».  He  has  also  promised  a  larger  edition  of 
this  text  with  the  Latin,  Slavonic  and  Armenian  versions.  B.  Aubd, 
l'Eglise  et  FEtat  dans  la  seconde  moitie  du  IIP  siecle,  Paris,  1885,  pp.  140 
to  154.  Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Geschichte  des  neutestamentlichen  Kanons 
(1891),  iv.  271  f.  J.  A.  F.  Gregg,  The  Decian  Persecution,  Edinburgh, 
1897,  pp.  242 — 261   264 — 266. 

10.  ACTA  DISPUTATIONIS  S.  ACHATII.  —  Achatius  (Acacius),  pro- 
bably bishop  of  Antioch  in  Phrygia,  but  not  to  be  confounded  with 
Acacius,  bishop  of  Melitene  in  Asia  Minor,  underwent  an  interesting 
interrogatory  before  the  consular  magistrate  Marcianus;  after  examining 
the  records  of  which  Decius  allowed  him  to  go  free. 

The  Latin  text  of  the  official  records  is  in  Ruinart,  2.  ed.,  pp.  152  to 
155.  It  is  certainly  a  version  from  the  Greek;  cf.  Aubi,  1.  c.  pp.  181  to 
194,  and  the  «Acta»  of  Gebhardt. 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.    15,  46 — 47. 


SECOND  PERIOD. 

FROM  THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  FOURTH  TO  THE 
MIDDLE  OF  THE  FIFTH  CENTURY. 

FIRST  SECTION. 

GREEK  WRITERS. 

§  60.     General  conspectus. 

I .  THE  CHANGE  IN  THE  EXTERNAL  CONDITION  OF  THE  CHURCH.  — 
The  edict  of  toleration  issued  by  the  Augusti  in  January  or  February 
of  313  restored  peace  to  the  Christian  Church.  At  the  same  time 
it  was  only  a  lame  attempt  at  concealing  the  complete  overthrow 
of  the  heathen  state;  there  could  be  but  one  step  more-from  toleration 
to  frank  preference  of  Christianity.  In  337  Constantine  received  the 
baptism  that  he  had  long  put  off.  His  sons  assumed  at  once  a 
hostile  attitude  towards  heathenism.  Julian  the  Apostate  (361 — 363) 
attempted  to  infuse  new  life  into  the  moribund  polytheism,  but  his 
efforts  only  made  more  manifest  the  incompatibility  between  the  old 
religion  and  the  exigencies  of  the  new  times.  In  392  the  worship 
of  the  gods  was  declared  high  treason  (crimen  maiestatis) 1 ;  and  as 
early  as  423  heathenism  was  looked  on  in  the  East  as  defunct2. 

During  the  campaign  against  the  Persians  in  which  he  met  his  death, 
Julian  wrote  three  books  against  the  Galilaeans,  xaxa  Ta/aXaitov,  of  which 
only  some  fragments  remain.  The  work  began  with  the  words:  «I  hold 
it  proper  for  me  to  expose  to  all  men  the  motives  which  have  persuaded 
me  that  the  mendacious  teaching  of  the  Galilaeans  is  a  malicious  invention 
of  men.»  Most  of  the  extant  fragments  are  found  in  the  first  book  of  the 
(only  partially  preserved)  work  of  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  against  Julian 
(§  77>  3)-  They  have  been  carefully  collected  by  K.  J.  Neumann,  Scrip- 
torum  graecorum  qui  christianam  impugnaverunt  religionem  quae  super- 
sunt,  fasc.  111,  Leipzig,  1880.  The  same  writer  has  also  translated  them 
into  German:  Kaiser  Julians  Bücher  gegen  die  Christen,  Leipzig,  1880. 
Cf.  P.  Klimek,  Coniectanea  in  Iulianum  et  Cyrilli  Alexandrini  contra  ilium 
libros  (Dissert,  inaug.) ,  Breslau,  1883;  Th.  Golhuitzer,  Observationes  cri- 
ticae  in  Iuliani  imperatoris  contra  Christianos  libros  (Dissert,  inaug.), 
Erlangen,  1886.  For  a  new  but  small  fragment  see  Neumann,  in  Theol. 
Literaturzeitung  (1899),    pp.  298 — 304-    G.  Negri,   L'imperatore    Giuliano 

1  Cod.    Theodos.,  xvi.    10,   12.  2  Ib.,  xvi.   io,   22. 


§    6o.      GENERAL    CONSPECTUS.  235 

l'Apostata.  Studio  storico,  Milano,  1901 ;  P.  Allard,  Julien  et  les  Chretiens: 
la  persecution  et  la  polemique  (third  and  last  volume  of  his  Julien  1' Apostat), 
Paris,   1902. 

2.  DEVELOPMENT  OF  ECCLESIASTICAL  DOCTRINE.  —  Though  the 
Church  was  now  free  from  external  oppression,  she  suffered  all  the 
more  from  domestic  enemies.  Both  in  the  East  and  the  West  she 
was  obliged  to  defend  the  purity  of  her  faith  against  the  attacks 
of  heresy.  It  is  the  development  and  determination  of  ecclesiastical 
doctrine  that  lend  to  this  epoch  its  distinctive  character.  To  the 
East  particularly  falls  the  special  task  of  abstract  crystallization  and 
speculative  illustration  of  theological  truths  in  their  strict  significance. 
During  a  first  period  which  closes  with  the  Second  Ecumenical 
Council  of  Constantinople  (381)  the  true  divinity  and  the  perfect 
humanity  of  the  Redeemer  are  established  against  Arianism,  Mace- 
donianism,  Sabellianism  and  Apollinarianism.  In  the  second  period 
which  ends  with  the  fourth  Ecumenical  Council  of  Chalcedon  (451) 
the  relation  of  the  human  and  the  divine  in  the  God-Man  is  rigorously 
defined  to  mean  that  the  two  natures  are  united  in  one  person,  but 
without  confusion  and  without  change. 

For  the  literary  history  of  Arianism,  Macedonianism,  Sabellianism  and 
Apollinarianism  cf.  §  61. 

3.  THEOLOGICAL  SCHOOLS  AND  TENDENCIES.  —  Under  these 
circumstances  ecclesiastical  science  grew  with  great  rapidity.  A  general 
peace  offered  favorable  opportunities  for  its  free  and  varied  develop- 
ment, while  the  conflict  with  heresy  opened  new  sources  of  intellectual 
growth.  Within  the  limits  of  ecclesiastical  theology  schools  and 
tendencies  arose  that  assumed  more  definite  outlines  than  in  earlier 
times,  and  through  assertion  of  their  special  characteristics  soon 
became  quite  opposed  one  to  another.  It  is  quite  easy  to  distinguish 
at  once  three  such  tendencies.  The  Neo-Alexandrine  school, 
having  freed  itself  from  the  subordinationist  errors  of  Origen  in 
his  Trinitarian  teaching,  continues  to  follow,  along  new  paths,  the 
impulse  of  its  great  master.  It  aims  at  a  speculative  knowledge  of 
the  truths  already  grasped  by  faith,  but  acknowledges  expressly 
that  the  Pistis  (Faith)  is  the  immovable  norm  of  all  true  Gnosis 
(Knowledge).  The  head  of  this  new  school  is  Athanasius;  its  most 
brilliant  disciples  are  the  three  Cappadocians :  Basil  the  Great,  Gre- 
gory of  Nazianzus,  and  Gregory  of  Nyssa.  It  is  true  that  Gregory  of 
Nyssa  defends  the  Origenistic  Apocatastasis,  while  somewhat  later  Didy- 
mus  the  Blind  and  Evagrius  Ponticus,  also  Origenists,  maintained 
both  the  pre-existence  of  souls  and  the  Apocatastasis;  both  were 
condemned.  Synesius  of  Cyrene  can  become  a  Christian  bishop, 
yet  remains  a  Hellene  «from  the  tip  of  his  toe  to  the  crown  of  his 
head».  Cyril,  the  bishop  of  Alexandria,  becomes  heir  to  both  the 
office  and  the  influence  of  an  Athanasius.    The  Antiochene  school 


236  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

continues  to  oppose  the  main  tendency  of  the  Alexandrine,  and  by 
reason  of  its  activity  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  is  known  as 
the  exegetical  school.  It  beholds  in  the  allegorical  interpretation  of  the 
Scripture,  as  taught  with  predilection  by  the  Alexandrine,  the  deadly 
enemy  of  all  sane  exegesis  and  it  lays  great  stress  on  an  objective,  i.  e. 
historico-grammatical,  rendering  of  the  text.  It  follows  with  apprehen- 
sive criticism  the  flight  of  Alexandrine  speculation.  Instead  of  depth 
and  warmth  of  sentiment  the  Antiochene  offers  an  extremely  sober 
intellectual  attitude,  quite  hostile  to  all  extravagance  of  thought.  The 
founder  of  this  school  is  the  martyr  Lucian  (§  44,  3),  the  teacher 
of  Arius.  Its  best-known  representatives  are  Diodorus  of  Tarsus, 
St.  John  Chrysostom,  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  Polychronius,  and 
Theodoret  of  Cyrus.  By  reason  of  their  rationalizing  tendencies,  most 
of  them,  particularly  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  came  into  conflict  with 
the  traditional  teachings  of  the  Church.  Precisely  at  the  height  of 
its  fame  (370—450)  almost  the  entire  school  was  Nestorian  in  doc- 
trine. Indeed,  the  struggle  between  Cyril  of  Alexandria  and  Nestorius 
was  really  the  hostile  embrace  of  the  Alexandrine  and  Antiochene 
tendencies.  Another  intellectual  movement  is  traceable  in  the  fourth 
century  and  may  be  described  as  an  excessive  Traditionalism.  It  is 
first  tangible  in  the  Anti-Origenistic  troubles,  and  later  on  rejected 
all  scientific  knowledge  and  criticism.  As  early  as  the  third  century 
some  writers,  notably  Methodius  of  Tyre,  had  protested  with  justice 
against  certain  theses  of  Origen.  However  the  fourth-century  re- 
action against  that  master's  influence,  as  headed  by  Epiphanius,  was 
more  a  matter  of  personal  interests  than  of  ecclesiastical  and  scientific 
opposition,  and  not  unfrequently  made  use  of  very  unworthy  means. 
These  Origenistic  controversies  are  the  first  herald  of  the  crisis  on 
which  Greek  theology  wras  entering  —  after  the  middle  of  the  fifth 
century  its  vitality  begins  to  ebb  and  weaken. 

C.  Hornung,  Schola  Antiochena  de  S.  Scripturae  interpretatione  quo- 
nam  modo  sit  merita,  Neustadt,  1864;  H.  Kihn ,  Die  Bedeutung  der  anti- 
ochenischen  Schule  auf  dem  exegetischen  Gebiete,  nebst  einer  Abhandlung 
über  die  ältesten  christlichen  Schulen,  Weissenburg,  1866  •  Ph.  Hergenröther , 
Die  antiochenische  Schule  und  ihre  Bedeutung  auf  exegetischem  Gebiete, 
Würz  bürg,   1866. 

4.  ECCLESIASTICAL  LITERATURE.  —  During  this  period  ecclesiastical 
literature  reaches  its  highest  standard  of  perfection.  In  almost  every 
department  a  tireless  activity  reigns;  fields  hitherto  unworked  are 
now  cultivated  with  zeal.  —  Apologetics.  Apologetic  literature  con- 
forms to  the  changed  conditions  and  assumes  a  new  character.  It 
was  usually  only  in  self-defence  that  the  earlier  apologists  had  made 
positive  attacks  on  heathenism;  henceforth  all  the  apologies  for 
Christianity  take  up  a  polemical  attitude.  The  defenders  of  the  new 
religion  against  the  attacks  of  Julian  are  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  John 


§    6o.      GENERAL    CONSPECTUS.  237 

Chrysostom,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  and  Philippus  Sidetes ;  against  the 
writings  of  Porphyrius,  Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  the  younger  Apollinaris 
and  Macarius  Magnes ;  Eusebius  also  enters  the  arena  against  Hierocles 
(or  rather  Philostratus).  The  apologies  with  more  general  tendency 
of  Eusebius,  Athanasius  and  Theodoretus  are  of  use  rather  in  attack 
than  in  defence.  Specially  anti-Jewish  works  were  composed  by  Gre- 
gory of  Nyssa  (?),  Diodorus  of  Tarsus,  and  John  Chrysostom.  Numerous 
champions  arose  against  the  rapid  and  widespread  growth  of  the 
system  of  the  Persian  Mani  (f  about  277),  which  propagated  under 
a  Christian  garb  ideas  that  were  essentially  Persian  dualism,  with 
its  two  kingdoms  of  light  and  darkness  and  their  corresponding  series 
of  aeons.  —  Polemics  and  Systematic  Theology.  The  doctrinal 
writings  are  mostly  occupied  with  the  burning  questions  of  the  time, 
and  are  usually  strictly  polemical  in  character.  In  the  fourth  century 
the  principal  opponents  of  heresy  are  Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  Atha- 
nasius, the  three  Cappadocians  (Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  Basil  the  Great, 
and  Gregory  of  Nyssa),  Didymus  the  Blind  and  Epiphanius;  in  the 
fifth  centuiy  Cyril  of  Alexandria  and  Theodoret  of  Cyrus  are  most 
prominent.  The  «Epitome  of  Divine  Teachings»,  ftsuuv  doyfidzcov 
EXLTOfiT],  added  by  Theodoret  to  his  «Compendium  of  Heretical 
Fables»  is  a  noteworthy  attempt  at  a  systematic  theology.  Special 
points  of  doctrine  were  treated  in  a  markedly  positive  manner  by 
Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  and  Epiphanius.  —  Biblical 
Theology.  No  attention  was  paid  to  textual  criticism.  Epiphanius  alone 
was  acquainted  with  Hebrew;  he  also  made  remarkable  progress  in  the 
department  of  introductory  sciences  or  biblical  antiquities,  though  it  had 
been  cultivated  before  him  by  Eusebius  of  Caesarea.  Gregory  of  Nyssa 
undertook  occasionally  to  illustrate  and  defend  the  hermeneutical  prin- 
ciples of  the  Neo-Alexandrines,  while  Diodorus  of  Tarsus  and  Theo- 
dore of  Mopsuestia  upheld  the  principles  of  the  Antiochene  school. 
The  work  of  Adrianus,  entitled  «Introduction  to  the  Sacred  Scrip- 
tures», may  be  considered  as  an  Antiochene  manual  of  Hermeneutics. 
In  Christian  circles,  outside  of  Antioch  and  its  territory,  the  alle- 
gorizing method  maintained  its  supremacy,  and  was  represented  by 
such  men  as  Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  Athanasius,  Gregory  of  Nyssa, 
Didymus  the  Blind,  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  writers  of  the  Antiochene  school  were  remarkable  for  their  lite- 
rary productiveness;  the  commentaries  of  Theodoret  of  Cyrus  exhibit 
the  highest  degree  of  perfection,  both  in  form  and  contents,  although 
the  homilies  of  John  Chrysostom  are  not  inferior  as  specimens  of 
exegetical  skill.  —  Historical  Theology.  Church  History,  unknown 
to  the  first  three  centuries,  reached  a  very  high  standard.  The 
creator  of  this  science  is  Eusebius  of  Caesarea.  His  labors  were 
continued  by  Socrates,  Sozomen  and  Theodoret.  The  Eunomian  Philo- 
storgius  wrote  a  history  of  the  Church,  in  the  interests  of  Arianism. 


238  SECOND    PERIOD.      FIRST    SECTION. 

Other  ecclesiastical  histories  written  in  this  period  have  been  lost, 
e.  g.  those  of  Philippus  Sidetes,  Hesychius  of  Jerusalem,  Timotheus 
of  Berytus  and  Sabinus  of  Heraclea.  The  latter's  work  was  the  first 
known  history  of  the  Councils.  Histories  of  heresy  were  published 
by  Epiphanius  and  Theodoret.  —  Practical  Theology.  The  ascetico- 
moral  literature  of  the  time  was  the  outcome  of  Christian  monasticism 
whose  institutions  appeared  first  in  Egypt,  and  were  then  transplanted 
into  Palestine  by  Hilarion,  whence  Basil  the  Great  brought  them  to 
Asia  Minor.  Ascetical  manuals  for  ecclesiastics,  more  particularly 
for  monks,  were  written  by  Basil  the  Great,  Gregory  of  Nazianzus, 
and  Chrysostom.  To  a  similar  purpose  we  owe  the  Life  of  Saint 
Anthony  by  Athanasius,  and  the  collections  of  monastic  biographies 
by  Timotheus  of  Alexandria  and  Palladius.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  was  a 
brilliant  catechetical  expounder,  and  John  Chrysostom  a  homilist  and 
preacher  of  great  renown.  The  so-called  Apostolic  Constitutions,  that 
undertake  to  regulate  the  whole  course  of  Christian  and  ecclesiastical 
life,  belong  to  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century,  and  were  probably 
the  work  of  Syrian  Apollinarists. 

5.  ECCLESIASTICAL  LITERATURE  (CONTINUED).  POETRY.  —  Similar- 
ly, in  poetry  and  song  the  Church  enters  upon  a  rivalry  with  the 
dying  heathenism  of  the  period,  though  in  this  department  of  litera- 
ture the  Greek  Church  failed  to  keep  pace  with  the  Syrian  and  the 
Latin  Churches.  Arius  attempted,  indeed,  to  render  his  heresy  po- 
pular by  means  of  folk-songs.  The  elder  and  the  younger  Apol- 
linaris  of  Laodicea,  Nonnus(?),  and  the  Empress  Eudocia,  attempted 
with  doubtful  success  to  cast  Christian  thought  into  the  forms  of 
antique  poetry.  Pre-eminent  as  Christian  poets  during  the  fourth 
century  were  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  and  Synesius  of  Cyrene,  both  of 
whom  were  habitually  faithful  to  the  laws  of  antique  metre,  though  in 
Gregory  we  meet  already  new  forms  of  literary  art,  destined  to  awaken, 
by  the  use  of  nobler  harmonies,  a  more  universal  echo  in  the  heart 
of  the  people.  Henceforth  rhythmic  verse,  with  its  accentuation  of 
certain  words,  tends  to  suppress  the  antique  quantitative  metre. 

§  61.    Arianism,  Macedonianism,  Sabellianism,  Apollinarianism. 

I.  ARIANISM.  —  We  possess  very  insufficient  knowledge  of  the 
Christology  of  the  martyr  Lucian  (§  44,  3) ;  it  was,  however,  decided- 
ly subordinationist,  and  was  the  basis  on  which  Arius,  a  pres- 
byter of  Alexandria  (f  336),  began  to  teach  that  the  Logos  or  Son 
of  God  was  a  creature  of  God  (xrtcr/jia,  -novqfia),  called  into  being 
out  of  nothing  (££  oux  ovtmv),  before  the  creation  of  the  world,  by 
a  free  act  of  divine  will,  in  order  to  serve  God  as  instrument  for 
the  creation  of  the  other  beings.  The  Son  did  not  always  exist  (oux 
del  tjv  6  üwq);  there  was  a  time  when  he  was  not  (tjv  tzote  ore  oox 
yv);  before  he  was  created  he  was  nothing;    like  all  other  creatures 


§    6l.      ARIANISM,    MACEDONIANISM,    SABELLIANISM,    APOLLINARIANISM.    239 

he  too  had  a  beginning  by  creation  (odx  yv  np\v  yevrjzat,  dM  dp/rjv 
too  xzi&ottat  £<j/e  xa\  adzbgj1.  The  Son  is,  therefore,  by  nature 
entirely  distinct  from  the  Father  (b  Xoyoq  dUozpcog  plv  xai  dvopoioq 
xazd  Ttdvza  ztjq  zoü  xazpog  odaiag  xa\  IdiozyzoQ  iazw2;  $£vog  too  ulou 
xaz  obaiav  b  Trarqp,  ozt  auap/oQ  OTtdp^si) 3.  He  is  called  the  Son  of 
God  in  the  same  sense  as  men  are  called  the  children  of  God,  and 
if  the  Scriptures  say  he  was  begotten,  that  «begetting»  is  identical 
with  the  creative  act.  The  second  creature  of  God,  after  the  Logos, 
is  the  Holy  Spirit;  only  the  Father  is  true  God.  —  The  first  ecu- 
menical Council  at  Nicaea  (325)  condemned  the  teaching  of  Arius 
and  declared  that  the  Son  of  God  was  of  the  same  nature  or  sub- 
stance with  the  Father  (zbv  o\bv  zoo  fteoT)  .  .  .  bpoouaujv  zw  Tiazpi). 
It  was  only  after  long  conflicts,  in  which  the  very  existence  of  the 
Church  was  apparently  at  stake,  that  the  decision  of  the  Council  was 
universally  accepted.  The  chief  literary  champions  of  Arianism  were 
the  sophist  Asterius  (f  about  330?),  the  Antiochene  deacon  Aetius 
(t  about  370),  the  bishops  Acacius  of  Caesarea  (f  366)  and  Eu- 
nomius  of  Cyzicus  (f  about  395).  Catholic  orthodoxy  was  represented 
principally  by  Athanasius,  and  the  three  Cappadocians :  Basil  the 
Great,  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  and  Gregory  of  Nyssa. 

Some  fragments  of  the  writings  of  Arius  under  the  title  of  «A  Banquet» 
(BaXewc)  are  preserved  in  the  writings  of  Athanasius  (Orat.  c.  Avian.,  i. 
2 — 10;  De  synodis,  c.  15).  There  are  also  letters  of  Arius  to  Eusebius, 
bishop  of  Nicomedia  [Theodor et.,  Hist,  eccl.,  i.  4),  to  Alexander,  bishop  of 
Alexandria  [Äthan.,  De  synodis,  c.  16;  Epiph.,  Haer.  69,  7),  and  a  pro- 
fession of  faith  [Socrates,  Hist,  eccl.,  i.  26;  Sozomenus,  Hist,  eccl,  ii.  27). 
According  to  Athanasius  the  «Banquet»  contained  also  poetical  passages. 
Philostbrgius  says  (Hist,  eccl.,  ii.  2)  that  Arius  wrote  «songs  for  sailors  and 
millers  and  travellers,  and  other  similar  chants»,  destined  to  spread  his  teach- 
ings among  the  people.  See  (Cardinal)  JVewmans  History  of  the  Arians. 
Le  Bachelet ,  Arianisme,  Diet,  de  la  TheoL,  Paris,  1903,  i.  1779 — 1863. 
Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  (f  341  or  342),  the  «Syllucianist»  or  fellow-disciple 
of  Arius  in  the  school  of  Lucian  (see  the  end  of  Arius'  letter  to  Eusebius), 
defended  at  once  in  a  series  of  letters  the  views  of  his  school-mate.  One 
letter,  that  to  Paulinus  of  Tyre,  has  reached  us  through  Theodoret  (Hist. 
eccl,  i.  5);  a  fragment  of  a  letter  to  Arius  has  come  down  through  Atha- 
nasius (De  synodis,  c.  17),  where  there  are  also  excerpts  from  letters  written 
to  Arius  by  other  friends.  The  sophist  and  «Syllucianist»  Asterius  wrote  in 
defence  of  Arius ;  fragments  of  his  writings  are  quoted  by  Athanasius  (Orat. 
c.  Arian.,  i.  32;  ii.  37;  iii.  2;  De  synodis,  cc.  18—19,  and  elsewhere). 
Many  other  writings  of  this  sophist  have  perished  [scripsit  in  Epistolam  ad 
Romanos  et  in  Evangelia  et  Psalmos  commentarios  et  multa  alia,  says  St.  Jerome, 
De  viris  ill,  c.  94).  For  further  details  of  the  life  of  Asterius  cf.  Th.  Zahn, 
Marcellus  von  Ancyra,  Gotha,  1867,  pp.  38  fr.  A  little  work  of  Aetius  has 
been  preserved  by  Epiphanius  (Haer.  76,  n);  it  defends  in  47  theses  the 
motto  of  the  Arians  avojjtoio-  (Sc.  6  uioc  xw  Trarpi).  Acacius  of  Caesarea  defended 
his  fellow-heretic  Asterius  against  an  attack  of  Marcellus,  bishop  of  Ancyra 

1  Arius,  Thalia,  in  Äthan.,  Orat.  c.  Arian.,  i.   5. 

2  Äthan.,  Orat.  c.  Arian.,  i.   6.  3  Äthan.,  De  synodis,  c.   15. 


240  SECOND    PERIOD.      FIRST    SECTION. 

(§  61,  3);  fragments  of  this  apology  may  be  seen  in  Epiphanius  (Haer.  72, 
6 — 10).  There  is  also  a  Semiarian  confession  of  faith  laid  by  Acacius 
before  the  Synod  of  Seleucia  in  359  (Epiph,,  Haer.  73,  25).  Many  other 
of  the  writings  of  Acacius  have  disappeared  [Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  98; 
Socrates,  Hist.  eccl. ,  ii.  4).  In  imitation  of  the  sophistical  dialectic  of 
Aetius,  his  disciple  Eunomius  called  theology  «a  technology»  (ts/voXoyiocv, 
Theod.,  Haer.  fab.,  iv.  3).  We  still  have  a  work  of  Eunomius ,  entitled 
'AtcoXo-pjtixg; ,  composed  about  360,  to  which  Basil  the  Great  wrote  an 
answer  [Migne,  PG.,  xxx.  835 — 868  among  the  works  of  Basil  the  Great; 
cf.  Goldhom,  S.  Basilii  opera  dogm.  sei.,  Leipzig,  1854,  pp.  580 — 615). 
In  the  work  of  Gregory  of  Nyssa  against  Eunomius  (cf.  Rettberg,  Marcel- 
liana,  Göttingen,  1794,  pp.  125 — 147)  some  brief  fragments  are  pre- 
served of  the  counter-reply  of  Eunomius  entitled  urcsp  ttj?  diroXoYiac  oltzo- 
Xo-fia,  written  probably  in  378,  as  an  answer  to  the  work  of  St.  Basil. 
For  a  formal  profession  of  faith  made  by  Eunomius  before  the  Emperor 
Theodosius,  about  381  or  383,  and  severely  criticised  by  Gregory  of  Nyssa 
in  the  second  book  of  his  work  against  Eunomius,  see  Rettberg,  1.  c,  pp.  149 
to  169,  and  Goldhor?i,  1.  c,  pp.  618 — 629.  We  know  only  the  title  of  a 
commentary  by  Eunomius  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  mentioned  by 
Socrates  (Hist,  eccl,  iv,  7) ;  there  existed  once  a  collection  of  forty  letters 
of  Eunomius  mentioned  by  Photius  (Bibl.  Cod.  138).  Eunomius  was  not 
so  much  an  advanced  disciple  of  Arianism  as  a  logical  student  and  teacher 
of  its  consequences;  cf.  C.  R.  W.  Klosse ,  Geschichte  und  Lehre  des  Eu- 
nomius, Kiel,  1833;  Fr.  Diekamp,  Die  Gotteslehre  des  hl.  Gregor  von  Nyssa, 
Münster,  1896,  i.  122  ff;  Mason,  The  Five  Theological  Orations  of  Saint 
Gregory  of  Nazianzus  (the  first  four  are  against  Eunomius),  Cambridge, 
1899.  Fragments  of  a  Commentary  on  Isaias  written  by  the  Arian  bishop 
Theodore  of  Heraclea  (f  about  355),  were  published  by  Mai  [Migne,  PG., 
xviii.  1307 — 1378).  St.  Jerome  mentions  (Ep.  112,  20)  commentaries  of 
Theodore  on  the  Psalms  and  (Comm.  in  Matth.,  praef.)  on  the  Gospel  of 
Matthew.  Batiffol  has  shown  that  the  Arians  were  very  active  in  distri- 
buting the  acts  of  their  martyrs  and  biographies  of  their  prominent  mem- 
bers :  P.  Batiffol,  Etudes  d'hagiographie  arienne.  La  passion  de  S.  Lucien 
d'Antioche,  in  Compte  Rendu  du  congres  scientif.  internat.  des  Catho- 
liques,  1891,  2.  section,  pp.  181 — 186;  Id.,  Etudes  d'hagiographie  arienne : 
Parthenius  de  Lampsaque,  in  Rom.  Quartalschr.  für  christl.  Altertumskunde 
u.  für  Kirchengesch.  (1892),  vi.  35  —  51;  cf.  ib.  (1893),  vii.  298 — 301; 
Id.,  Un  historiographe  anonyme  arien  du  4.  siecle,  ib.  (1895),  ix.  57 — 97. 
On   the  Ecclesiastical  History    of  the  Eunomian  Philostorgius  see  §  79,  2. 

2.  MACEDONIANISM.  —  During  the  main  struggle  between  Catholic 
orthodoxy  and  Arianism,  divergent  doctrines  were  being  taught  among 
the  Arians  themselves.  The  Semiarians  rejected  the  rhojuoiog  of  the 
extreme  Arians,  and  put  in  its  place,  some  an  ojuoioq,  some  an  bfioioomoQ. 
Nevertheless,  whenever  the  former  drew  near  to  the  Catholic  doc- 
trine (bpoouoioQ)  concerning  the  Son  of  God,  they  fell  away  pro- 
portionately by  insisting  that  the  nature  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  a 
created  and  not  a  divine  nature ;  hence  they  were  known  as  Pneumato- 
machi.  It  was  Macedonius,  bishop  of  Constantinople  (f  after  360), 
the  esteemed  head  of  the  Semiarians  of  Thrace,  who  maintained  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  was  a  being  subordinate  to  the  Father  and  the  Son, 
a   creature   like   the   angels.     The  Second  Ecumenical  Council  (Con- 


§    6l.      ARIANISM,    MACEDONIANISM,    SABELLIANISM,    APOLLINARIANISM.    24 1 

stantinople,  381)  condemned  Macedonius  and  proclaimed  the  divinity 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  (to  Tvusu/jta  to  äytov  ...  to  abv  iza.Tp\  xa\  ulw 
aoyLTLpoay.ovoofizvov  xcu  oDvdo^aZbfizvov).  Throughout  this  controversy 
Athanasius,  the  three  Cappadocians ,  and  Didymus  the  Blind  were 
the  theological  defenders  of  the  traditional  faith  of  the  Church. 

It  is  not  known  whether  Macedonius  left  any  writings.  Among  the  writers 
of  his  party  are  Eusebius  of  Emesa  (f  ca.  359),  Basil  of  Ancyra  (f  after 
360),  and  George  of  Laodicea  (f  after  360).  The  greater  part  of  the 
works  of  Eusebius  of  Emesa,  declared  unnumerdbilesf>  by  St.  Jerome  (De 
viris  ill.,  c.  91)  have  perished.  The  Greek  homilies  and  fragments  col- 
lected by  August! :  Eusebii  Emeseni  quae  supersunt  opuscula  graeca,  ad 
fidem  codd.  Vindobonensium  et  editionum  diligenter  expressa  et  adnotatio- 
nibus  bist,  et  phil.  illustrata  ab  /.  Chr.  G.Augusti,  Elberfeld,  1829  (cf.  Migne, 
PG. ,  lxxxvi.  1 ,  463  ff.),  belong  to  Eusebius  of  Alexandria ,  Eusebius  of 
Caesarea  and  others:  see  J.  C.  Thilo,  Über  die  Schriften  des  Eusebius 
von  Alexandrien  und  des  Eusebius  von  Emesa,  Halle,   1832. 

Two  large  collections  of  Latin  homilies  were  formerly  attributed  with- 
out reason  to  Eusebius  of  Emesa:  a)  Homiliae  56  ad  populum  et  mon- 
achos,  in  reality  the  work  of  various  ecclesiastical  writers  of  Gaul  (Hila- 
rius  of  Aries,  Faustus  of  Reji,  Caesarius  of  Aries),  first  collected,  appa- 
rently, by  Eusebius  Bruno,  bishop  of  Angers  (f  1081).  They  are  printed 
in  Max.  Bibl.  vet.  Patr.,  Lyons,  1677,  vi.  618 — 675.  b)  Homiliae  145  (or 
rather  142)  in  evangelia  festosque  dies  totius  anni,  taken,  and  for  the 
most  part  verbally,  from  the  gospel-commentary  of  Bruno  of  Segni  (f  n  23). 
They  are  in  Migne,  PL.,  clxv/747 — 864,  among  the  works  of  Bruno  of 
Segni.  Cf.  for  these  two  collections  of  homilies  Eeßler- Jungmann,  Institt. 
Patrol. ,  ii.  1,  3 — 4,  and  for  more  details  concerning  the  first  collection 
§  in,  2 — 3.  On  the  other  hand,  of  the  fourteen  opuscicla  or  homilies 
extant  in  Latin  only  and  published  by  J.  Sirmond  (1643),  under  the 
name  of  Eusebius  of  Caesarea  [Migne,  PG. ,  xxiv.  1047 — 1208),  at  least 
the  first  two  (De  fide  adversus  Sabellium,  i.  e.  against  Marcellus  of  Ancyra, 
cf.  §  61,  3)  are  the  work  of  Eusebius  of  Emesa.  A  still  unedited  discourse 
«On  resting  from  labor  on  the  Lord's  Day»  that  Zahn  inclines  to  con- 
sider the  work  of  Eusebius  of  Emesa,  is  printed  by  Zahn,  in  Skizzen  aus 
dem  Leben  der  alten  Kirche,  Erlangen,  1894,  pp.  278 — 286.  Basil  of 
Ancyra  and  George  of  Laodicea  were  joint  authors,  in  the  name  of  their 
party,,  of  a  doctrinal  memorial  that  Epiphanius  has  preserved  (Haer.  73, 
12—22).  Other  works  of  Basil  of  Ancyra  have  perished  [Hier.,  De  viris 
ill,  c.  89) ;  cf.  jf.  Schladebach,  Basilius  von  Ancyra  (Inaug.-Diss.),  Leipzig, 
1898;  F.  Cavallera,  Le  «De  virginitate»  de  Basile  d'Ancyre,  in  Revue 
d'histoire  eccle'siastique  (1905),  pp.  5  — 15.  The  works  of  George  of  Lao- 
dicea have  also  perished;  cf.  J.  Dräseke ,  Gesammelte  patristische  Unter- 
suchungen, Altona,  1889,  pp.  14—24.  On  the  ecclesiastical  history  of  the 
Macedonian  Sabinus  of  Heraclea  see  §  79,  2. 

3.  SABELLIANISM.  —  In  order  to  emphasize  more  forcibly  the 
unity  of  nature  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son,  Marcellus,  bishop  of 
Ancyra  in  Galatia  (f  ca.  374),  went  so  far  as  to  suppress  the  dis- 
tinction of  persons  in  the  divine  nature.  According  to  him  the  Logos 
is  the  eternal  indwelling  power  of  God,  which  manifests  itself  in 
creation  of  the  world  as  operative  power  (ivipftia  dpaoTixij),  and 
dwells   in  Christ   for   the   purpose   of  redeeming   and   perfecting  the 

Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  1 6 


242  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

human  race.  This  God-Man  is  called  and  is  Son  of  God.  The  Logos 
is  not  begotten ;  before  the  Incarnation  there  was  no  Son  of  God. 
Because  of  its  affinity  with  the  modalistic  Monarchianism  of  the  pres- 
byter Sabellius  (first  half  of  the  third  century)  this  teaching  of  Mar- 
cellus  was  known  in  the  East  as  Sabellianism.  Owing  to  the  op- 
position of  Eusebius  of  Caesarea  and  Athanasius  it  met  with  but  few 
adherents. 

In  his  Contra  Marcellum  and  De  ecclesiastica  theologia  Eusebius  of  Cae- 
sarea has  preserved  some  fragments  of  the  work  of  Marcellus  De  subiec- 
tione  Domini  Christi  (ictpt  tyj?  too  uioo  oicororpjc;  cf.  i  Cor.  xv.  28)  written 
against  the  Arian  Asterius  (§  61,  1).  Epiphanius  quotes  (Haer.  72)  a  letter 
of  Marcellus  to  Pope  Julius  of  the  year  337  or  338  and  the  already  (§  61,  1) 
mentioned  fragments  of  the  work  of  Acacius  against  Marcellus,  also  a  pro- 
fession of  faith  made  by  the  followers  of  Marcellus.  Other  writings  of 
Marcellus,  unknown  to  us,  are  mentioned  by  St.  Jerome  (De  viris  ill.,  c.  86). 
All  that  remains  is  to  be  found  in  Chr.  If.  G.  Rettberg,  Marcelliana,  Göt- 
tingen, 1794;  the  so-called  Legatio  Eugenii  diaconi  ad  S.  Athanasium  pro 
causa  Marcelli  is  in  Migne,  PG.,  xviii.  1301 — 1306.  C.  R.  W.  Klose,  Ge- 
schichte und  Lehre  des  Marcellus  und  Photinus,  Hamburg,  1837;  Fr.  A. 
Willenborg,  Über  die  Orthodoxie  des  Marcellus  von  Ancyra,  Münster,  1859; 
Th.  Zahn,  Marcellus  von  Ancyra,  Gotha,  1867  ;  Fr.  Loofs,  Die  Trinitäts- 
lehre  Marcells  von  Ancyra  und  ihr  Verhältnis  zur  älteren  Tradition,  Sitzungs- 
berichte der  k.  preuß.  Akad.  der  Wissensch.,  Berlin,  1902.  —  Photinus, 
bishop  of  Sirmium  (f  ca.  376),  was  an  Asiatic  like  Marcellus,  and  his  dis- 
ciple. Taking  for  granted  that  there  was  in  God  but  one  person,  he  taught 
that  our  Lord  was  a  man  miraculously  born ,  who  had  attained  the  divine 
dignity  by  reason  of  his  high  moral  development.  The  numerous  Greek 
and  Latin  writings  of  Photinus  {Hier.,  De  viris  ill,  c.  107 ;  Vine.  Lerin.,  Com- 
monit.,  c.   16)  have  all  perished;  cf.  Zahn,  1.  c,  p.   189  ff. 

4.  APOLLINARIANISM.  —  Apollinaris,  bishop  of  Laodicea  in  Syria 
(f  ca.  390),  believed  that  the  true  divinity  of  the  Redeemer  could 
be  saved  only  by  the  sacrifice  of  his  perfect  humanity;  otherwise 
the  union  of  true  divinity  and  perfect  humanity  would  lead  to  the 
admission  of  two  Sons  of  God,  one  by  nature  and  the  other  by 
adoption  because,  he  says,  two  beings,  perfect  in  themselves,  can 
never  unite  in  one  being  (860  riXeta  ev  yeveaftat  od  duvarat)1. 
Moreover,  a  perfect  humanity  would  include  a  human  will,  and 
therefore  the  possibility  of  sin  on  the  part  of  the  Redeemer  (ottoo 
yap  zeXewQ  avttpcoTroQ ,  exet  xcu  aptapriaj2.  The  Son  of  God  did 
really  assume  a  living  flesh  (<rdp£Jt  an  animated  body,  but  it  was 
the  divinity  itself  that  took  the  place  of  the  human  vouq  or  of 
the  human  Trvsdpa.  This  doctrine  was  opposed  among  others  by 
St.  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  and  in  particular 
by  St.  Athanasius,  or  the  author  (or  authors)  of  the  two  books 
against  Apollinaris  that  appear  among  the  works  of  St.  Athanasius. 
The  Second  Ecumenical  Council  (Constantinople,  381),  condemned 
(in   its   first  canon)  the  heresy  of  the  Apollinarists.     Apollinaris  was 

1  Äthan.,  Contra  Apoll.,  i.   2.  2  lb. 


§    6l.      ARIANISM,    MACEDONIANISM,    SABELLIANISM,    APOLLINARIANISM.    243 

one  of  the  most  fertile  and  versatile  ecclesiastical  writers  of  his 
day.  He  was  primarily  an  exegete,  and  according  to  St.  Jerome1 
wrote  countless  volumes  on  the  Holy  Scriptures.  The  fragments  of 
his  writings  are  scattered  through  many  Catenae,  where  they  await 
collection  and  critical  study.  There  is  extant2  a  complete  paraphrase 
of  the  Psalms  in  hexameters,  richly  interwoven  with  reminiscences 
of  the  old  Hellenic  poets.  Precisely  for  that  reason  the  peculiar 
color  and  spirit  of  the  ancient  Hebrew  chants  are  lost.  There  is  so 
far  no  good  reason  for  admitting  the  hypothesis  of  Dräseke  that  the 
famous  metrical  paraphrase  of  St.  John's  Gospel3  written  about  the 
end  of  the  fourth  century  and  attributed  to  the  famous  heathen  poet 
Nonnus  of  Panopolis,  is  really  the  work  of  Apollinaris.  His  Father, 
the  elder  Apollinaris,  a  priest  of  Laodicea,  had  already  attempted  to 
clothe  the  Christian  Scriptures  in  the  garb  of  antique  Hellenic  poetry, 
but  none  of  his  works  have  reached  us.  Both  father  and  son  enter- 
tained the  hope  that  by  such  labors  they  would  be  able  to  compensate 
the'  Christians  for  the  loss  of  the  heathen  classics  and  to  win  over  the 
heathens  to  the  religion  of  Christ.  Also  the  thirty  books  of  the 
younger  Apollinaris  against  the  Neoplatonist  Porphyry  (f  ca.  304)  that 
merited  special  praise  from  St.  Jerome 4  have  not  reached  us.  Other 
works  not  mentioned  by  Jerome,  relating  to  the  Trinity  and  to 
Christology,  seemed  also  lost,  with  the  exception  of  some  fragments 
especially  from  his  «Demonstration  of  the  Incarnation  of  God  in  the 
image  of  Man»  (dTivdetqtc,  nepl  ttjq  SsiaQ  aapxcoaecoQ  ttjq  xaif  ojuotcocriv 
avttpcuTTouJ,  that  appear  in  the  refutation  of  this  work  by  St.  Gregory 
of  Nyssa  (see  §  69,  3).  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  Leontius  of  Byzantium 
or  the  author  of  Adversus  fremdes  Apollinaristarum 5  maintained 
that  Apollinarists  and  Monophysites  had  put.  in  circulation  certain 
writings  of  Apollinaris  (tivsq  t&v  'AnoXivapioo  Xoywv)  under  the  authori- 
tative names  of  SS.  Gregorius  Thaumaturgus,  Athanasius,  and  Julius 
(of  Rome).  The  researches  of  Caspari  (1879)  have  made  it  certain  that 
the  work  jj  xara  pipog  manq  that  went  under  the  name  of  Gregorius 
Thaumaturgus  (§  47,  5)  is  really  a  work  of  Apollinaris.  The  pro- 
fession of  faith  rcspi  rrJQ  aapxwaeajQ  too  Ssou  Xoyou ,  attributed  to 
Athanasius  (§  63,  3),  is  also  very  probably  from  the  pen  of  Apol- 
linaris. Similarly  several  letters  were  sent  abroad  under  the  name  of 
Pope  Julius  I.  (§  63,  14)  that  were  very  probably  written  by  Apol- 
linaris or  one  of  his  earliest  disciples.  Dräseke  claims  for  Apol- 
linaris a  number  of  other  works,  namely  the  Cohortatio  ad  Gentiles 
and  the  Expositio  fidei ,  printed  among  the  works  of  St.  Justin 
Martyr  (§  17,  5  —  6),  also  three  homilies  ascribed  to  Gregory  Thaumat- 
urgus  (§  47,    5),    the    fourth   and   fifth   books   of  St.    Basil's   work 

1  De  viris  ill.,  c.    104.  2  Migne,  PG.,  xxxiii.    1313—  J538. 

3  lb.,  xliii.   749 — 1228.  4  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.    104. 

5  Migne,  PG.,  lxxxvi.   2,    1948. 

16* 


244  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

against  Eunomius  (§  67 ,  4),  and  the  first  three  of  the  seven  dia- 
logues De  Trinitate  current  under  the  name  of  Theodoret  of  Cyrus 
(§  78,  8).  The  arguments  of  Dräseke  are  very  general  and  would 
probably  collapse  after  a   serious  study   of  any  one  of  these  works 

J.  Dräseke,  Apollinarios  von  Laodicea.  Sein  Leben  und  seine  Schriften. 
Nebst  einem  Anhang:  Apollinarii  Laodiceni  quae  supersunt  dogmatica 
(Texte  und  Untersuchungen),  Leipzig,  1892,  vii.  3 — 4.  This  work  includes 
the  results  of  many  special  researches  published  in  preceding  years.  The 
appendix  contains  a  correct  reprint  from  former  editions  of  Antirrheticus 
contra  Eunomium  (=  Pseudo-Basilius  M. ,  Adv.  Eun.,  iv — v),  Dialogi  de 
S.  Trinitate  (=  Pseudo-Theodoretus,  Dialogi  de  Trinitate,  i — iii),  De  Trini- 
tate (=  Pseudo-Justi?ius  M. ,  Expositio  fidei),  Fidei  expositio  (=  Pseudo- 
Gregorius  Thaumat.,  r\  xocxa  jiipo?  Tuati?),  De  divina  incarnatione  libri  frag- 
menta,  and  many  smaller  remnants.  A.  Spasskij  has  reached  quite  op- 
posite conclusions  in  his  (Russian)  work  on  Apollinarios  of  Laodicea, 
Sergiev,  1895;  see  the  remarks  of  Bonwetsch,  in  Byzant.  Zeitschr.  (1897), 
vi.  175 — 177.  For  exegetical  fragments  on  Proverbs,  Ezechiel  and  Isaias, 
attributed  to  Apollinaris,  see  A.  Mai,  Nova  Patr.  Bibl.,  Rome,  1854,  vii. 
part.  2,  76 — 80  82 — 91  128  — 130.  Specimens  of  a  critical  edition  of  the 
paraphrase  of  the  Psalms  mentioned  above  were  published  by  A.  Ludwich, 
Königsberg,  Psalms  1 — 3  (1880,  Progr.),  4 — 8  (1881 ,  Progr.).  The  very 
extensive  interpolation  of  the  text  may  be  traced  back  to  the  noted  forger 
Jacob  Diassorinos  (f  1563).  See  A.  Ludwich,  in  Byzant.  Zeitschr.  (1892),  i. 
292—301 ;  J.  Dräseke,  Die  Abfassungszeit  der  Psalmen-Paraphrase  des  Apol- 
linarios von  Laodicea,  in  Zeitschr.  für  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1889),  xxxii. 
108 — 120.  Id.,  Zu  Apollinarios  von  Laodicea,  «Ermunterungsschrift  an  die 
Hellenen»,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1903),  xlvi.  407 — 433.  For 
new  editions  of  the  paraphrase  of  the  Gospel  of  Saint  John,  usually  attributed 
to  Nonnus  of  Panopolis,  we  are  indebted  to  Fr.  Passow,  Leipzig,  1834, 
and  A.  Scheindler,  Leipzig,  1881  (in  both  the  text  of  the  Gospel  is  in- 
cluded). Janssen,  Das  Johannesevangelium  nach  der  Paraphrase  des  Non- 
nus Panopolitanus ,  mit  einem  ausführlichen  kritischen  Apparat,  Leipzig, 
1903,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  viii.  4.  The  hypothesis  of  the  author- 
ship of  Apollinaris  was  put  forward  by  Dräseke,  in  Theol.  Literaturzeitung 
(1891),  p.  332,  and  in  Wochenschrift  für  klass.  Philol.  (1893),  p.  349. 
On  the  merit  of  this  hypothesis,  the  character  of  the  paraphrase  and  the 
most  recent  literature,  cf.  Bardenhewer,  art.  Nonnus,  in  Wetzer  and  Weite, 
Kirchenlexikon,  2.  ed.,  also  G.  Voisin,  L'Apollinarisme ,  Paris,  1901 ; 
cf.  Id.,  Revue  d'hist.  eccl.  (1902),  iii.  33  —  55  239  —  252;  J.  Flemming  and 
H.  Lietzmann,  Apollinaristische  Schriften,  syrisch  mit  den  griechischen 
Texten  und  einem  syrisch-griechischen  Wortregister,  in  Abhhandl.  der  k. 
Gesellsch.  der  Wissensch.  zu  Göttingen  (1904).  We  have  lost  the  Pro- 
fession of  faith  of  Vitalis,  bishop  of  Antioch,  one  of  the  earliest  and  most 
active  of  the  disciples  of  Apollinaris.  It  is  mentioned  by  St.  Gregory  of 
Nazianzus  (Ep.   102,  ad  Cledon.). 

After  the  death  of  their  master  the  Apollinarists  divided  into  two 
parties,  the  followers  of  Polemon  (or  Polemius)  and  those  of  Valentinus; 
cf.  J.  C.  L.  Gieseler,  Commentat.  qua  Monophysitarum  veterum  variae  de 
Christi  persona  opiniones  illustrantur  partic.  II  (Progr.),  Göttingen,  1838, 
pp.  18 — 21,  where  the  extant  fragments  of  Polemon's  writings  are  found 
(pp.  18  —  20).  The  author  of  the  Adv.  fraudes  Apollinaristarum  (Migne,  PG., 
lxxxvi.  2,  1948— 1969)  has  saved  a  few  fragments  of  the  writings  of  Valen- 
tinus, the  adversary  of  Polemon,  and  of  those  of  his  disciple  and  follower, 


§    62.      EUSEBIUS    OF    CAESAREA.  245 

Timotheus,  bishop  of  Berytus ;  cf.  Fr.  Loofs,  Leontius  von  Byzanz,  Leipzig, 
1887,  pp.  84  fr.  For  the  Ecclesiastical  History  of  Leontius  see  §  79,  2. 
Valentinus  quotes  the  Christological  profession  of  faith  of  an  Apollinarist 
bishop  Job  (Migne,  1.  c,  1952  3320;  cf.  Caspari,  Alte  und  neue  Quellen 
zur  Geschiente  des  Taufsymbols,  Christiania,  1879,  P-  24)-  The  forger 
of  the  letters  of  St.  Ignatius  of  Antioch,  in  all  probability  identical  with 
the  compiler  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  leaves  no  doubt  as  to  his 
Apollinarian  tenets  (§  9,  1).  H.  Lietzmann,  Apollinaris  von  Laodicea  und 
seine  Schule,  Tübingen,  1904. 

§  62.  Eusebius  of  Caesarea. 
I.  PUS  LIFE.  —  The  golden  age  of  patristic  literature  opens  with 
the  splendid  productions  of  Eusebius  Pamphili,  bishop  of  Caesarea  in 
Palestine  (ca.  265  to  ca.  340).  This  land  was  at  once  his  home  and 
the  scene  of  his  literary  activity.  It  was  in  Caesarea,  which  later 
became  his  episcopal  see,  that  he  received  his  intellectual  training. 
In  this  city  he  enjoyed  for  many  years  the  society  of  the  learned 
priest  Pamphilus,  whose  name  he  assumed  as  a  token  of  veneration 
and  gratitude;  hence  he  was  known  as  Eusebius  Pamphili,  i.  e.  the 
spiritual  son  of  Pamphilus.  When  the  latter  was  thrown  into  prison 
during  the  persecution  of  Maximinus  Daza,  Eusebius  accompanied 
him  and  worked  with  him  at  an  Apology  for  Origen  (§  45,  1).  In 
309  Pamphilus  died  as  martyr;  at  a  later  date  Eusebius  honored  his 
memory  by  a  biography  in  three  books  (§45,  1).  He  escaped 
further  dangers  in  the  persecution  by  his  flight  from  Caesarea  to 
Tyre,  and  thence  into  Egypt.  Here  he  was  seized  and  imprisoned, 
but  it  is  uncertain  how  long  he  suffered  as  a  witness  to  the  Christian 
faith.  At  the  close  of  the  persecution  he  returned  to  Caesarea,  pro- 
bably in  313,  became  its  bishop,  and  a  very  influential  one,  for  he 
enjoyed  in  a  special  degree  the  favor  of  Constantine.  His  defects  are 
henceforth  no  less  manifest  than  his  good  qualities :  we  behold  in  him 
a  lack  of  personal  independence  and  of  clearness  in  his  doctrinal  ideas, 
that  very  seriously  affect  his  work  as  a  Christian  bishop.  He  does 
not  grasp  the  importance  and  drift  of  the  controversy  about  the 
Trinity.  He  is  constantly  in  the  field  as  a  peace-maker,  with  sug- 
gestions of  mutual  concessions  on  the  basis  of  a  recognition  of  the 
true  divinity  of  the  Redeemer  in  simply  biblical  terms.  He  believed 
that  the  Homoousian  doctrine  of  Athanasius  led  logically  to  Sabel- 
lianism;  this  phantom  was  ever  before  his  eyes  and  was  the  motive 
which  drew  him  ever  more  deeply  within  the  orbit  of  Arianism.  At 
the  Council  of  Nicaea  (325)  he  sought  to  take  up  a  conciliatory  at- 
titude, but  at  the  express  wish  of  the  Emperor  signed  the  profession 
of  faith  drawn  up  by  the  Council.  It  is  significant,  however,  that  the 
term  bfiooomoQ  never  occurs  in  his  writings,  not  even  in  those  com- 
posed after  the  Council  of  Nicaea.  He  held  communion  with  the 
Arians  and  may  have  influenced  the  imperial  measures  against  the 
orthodox    bishops.      He    certainly    took    a    prominent    part    in    the 


246  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

Council  of  Antioch  (330)  which  deposed  Eustathius,  bishop  of  that 
city  and  an  active  opponent  of  Arianism;  he  was  also  a  member 
of  the  Synod  of  Tyre  (335)  that  meted  out  a  similar  treatment  to 
Athanasius,  the  head  of  the  orthodox  party.  More  than  once  Eu- 
sebius  composed  public  laudations  of  Constantine.  On  the  occasion 
of  the  Emperor's  «tricennalia»  or  thirtieth  anniversary  of  the  as- 
sumption of  the  reins  of  government  (July  25.,  335),  he  delivered  a 
panegyric  on  Constantine  feig  KaivaravTwov  rov  ßaatlea  rpiaxovra- 
ev/jptxog)1.  When  the  emperor  died  (May  22.,  337)  he  dedicated  to 
his  memory  a  lengthy  eulogium  remarkable  for  declamation  rather 
than  for  genuine  eloquence  feig  rbv  KcovozavTiuotj  too  ßaaikecog  ßiov 
Xoyoi  d ' )  2. 

2.  HISTORICAL  WORKS.  —  Among  his  numerous  writings  none 
have  received  such  unqualified  approval,  dating  from  his  own  time,  as 
the  great  historical  works  known  as  the  «Chronicle»  and  the  «Eccle- 
siastical History».  They  have  earned  for  him  such  titles  as  the 
«Christian  Herodotus»  and  «Father  of  Church  History».  The  Chroni- 
cle3 bears  the  name  of  «Divers  Histories»  (TzavrodanT)  lazopla)  and 
is  divided  into  two  parts:  the  ^povoypacpia  and  the  xavtov  ypovixug. 
He  says  in  the  preface  that  it  is  his  purpose  to  furnish  an  ethno- 
graphic chronology  based  on  the  historical  monuments  of  the  nations 
(I.  part),  and  then  to  attempt  (II.  part)  a  synchronistic  co-ordination 
and  concordance  of  these  historical  data.  Before  him  Julius  Afri- 
canus  had  attempted  to  harmonize  the  historical  traditions  of  the 
Gentiles  and  the  Jews  (§  43,  2);  it  is  to  the  credit  of  Eusebius  that 
he  accomplished  this  task  and  that  his  calculations  were  accepted 
as  successful.  Throughout  his  work  runs  the  dominant  idea  of  a 
close  relation  between  the  most  remote  history  and  the  history  of  his 
own  time;  the  influence  that  these  views  of  Eusebius  exercised 
on  all  later  historiography  is  simply  incalculable.  Eusebius  wrote 
this  work  for  Orientals,  but  St.  Jerome  transplanted  to  the  West 
the  historical  ideas  of  the  «Chronicle»,  by  translating  the  2.  part  of 
it  into  Latin,  and  continued  it  to  379  (a.  Abr.  2395;  cf.  §  93,  6) 
i.  e.  he  added  fifty-four  years  to  the  historical  text  of  Eusebius,  who 
had  stopped  at  325  (a.  Abr.  2341).  The  first  part  of  the  Chronicle 
was  unknown  to  us  until  the  publication  of  the  Armenian  version. 
The  Greek  text  of  both  parts  has  perished,  save  for  some  fragments. 

In  its  first  edition  the  Ecclesiastical  History  of  Eusebius  (ixxtyata- 
OTixi]  loropiaj  4  described  the  vicissitudes  of  the  Church  from  its  foun- 
dation to  the  victories  of  Constantine  over  Maxentius  (October  28.,  312), 
and  of  Licinius  over  Maximinus  Daza  (April  30.,  313),  both  of  which 
victories  are  treated  by  Eusebius  as  the  triumph  of  Christianity  over 
paganism.    These  victories  are  the  subject  of  the  last  chapter  in  the 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xx.   1315— 1540.  2  Ib.,  xx.   905—1230. 

3  Ib.,  xix.  4  Ib.,  xx. 


§    62.      EUSEBIUS    OF    CAESAREA.  247 

ninth  book  of  the  History,  and  the  concluding  words  are  evidently 
written  as  a  suitable  ending  to  the  whole  work.  At  a  later  date  Eusebius 
added  a  tenth  book,  which  brings  the  history  of  the  Church  down  to  the 
defeat  of  Licinius  (July  3.,  323)  i.  e.  to  the  sole  rulership  of  Constantine. 
The  Ecclesiastical  History  is  a  very,  rich  collection  of  historical  facts, 
documents,  and  excerpts  from  a  multitude  of  writings  belonging  to  the 
golden  youth  of  the  Christian  Church.  The  value  of  these  materials 
is  beyond  all  calculation,  although  the  text  in  which  they  are  in- 
corporated, can  lay  claim  neither  to  completeness  of  narrative  nor 
to  an  evenly  distributed  treatment  of  events,  much  less  to  an  orderly 
and  genetic  exposition  of  its  store  of  historical  information.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  a  «source-book»  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  word. 
Eusebius  has  been  reproached  with  deliberate  falsification  of  facts, 
but  the  reproach  cannot  be  proved,  although  here  and  there  his 
personal  feelings  of  favor  or  of  dislike  may  have  influenced  his  judg- 
ment or  hindered  breadth  of  view.  We  owe  to  Rufinus  (§  92,  3) 
a  Latin  paraphrase  of  the  Church  History.  It  is  easier  to  defend 
the  historical  value  of  this  work  than  that  of  the  statements  con- 
cerning Constantine  (see  §  62,  1)  wherein  he  has  been  often  reproached 
with  intentional  alteration  of  the  facts  of  history.  In  them  Eusebius 
is  less  a  historian  than  a  panegyrist,  who  now  palliates  and  now 
exaggerates.  In  opposition  to  contemporary  pagan  writers  he  aims  at 
setting  in  a  clear  light  the  Christian  and  ecclesiastical  sentiments  of 
the  emperor.  ■ —  We  have  lost  a  collection  of  ancient  Acts  of  the 
martyrs  compiled  by  Eusebius  (§  59,  1);  on  the  other  hand,  we 
possess  still  a  little  work  written  by  him  on  the  contemporary  martyrs 
of  Palestine.  It  has  reached  us  in  two  recensions:  a  shorter  one  in 
Greek,  usually  printed  as  an  appendix  to  the  eighth  book  of  the 
Church  History,  and  a  longer  one,  the  complete  text  of  which  is 
extant  only  in  a  Syriac  version. 

3.  EXEGETICAL  WORKS.  —  Besides  his  superior  gifts  as  a  historian 
Eusebius  possessed  a  great  aptitude  for  exegetical  studies.  He  is  lack- 
ing, however,  in  sound  and  clear  hermeneutical  principles ;  it  is  sub- 
stantially the  manner  and  method  of  Origen  that  predominate  in  his 
exegetical  writings.  He  must  have  written  continuous  commentaries 
on  an  entire  series  of  biblical  books.  The  commentary  on  the  Psalms 
edited  by  Montfaucon1  had  numerous  gaps,  and  ends  with  Psalm  118. 
Mai  discovered  in  several  Catenae  fragments  of  the  commentary  on 
the  following  Psalms 2 ;  Pitra  was  able  to  add  other  remnants  of  the 
commentary  on  preceding  Psalms  which  show  Eusebius  to  have  been  a 
plagiarist  of  Origen.  The  greater  part  of  the  commentary  on  Isaiah 3 
has  been  saved ;  in  it  he  promises  an  historical  exposition  but  often 
ends  in  arbitrary  allegorism.    Of  his  commentaries  on  New  Testament 

1  Ib.,  xxiii.  2  Ib.,  xxiv.   9—76.  3  Ib.,  xxiv.  89 — 526. 


248  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

books  very  considerable  fragments  have  reached  us,  chiefly  of  those  on 
the  Gospel  of  Saint  Luke  K  Other  works  of  Eusebius  may  be  described 
as  introductory  to  the  study  of  the  Bible.  Thus,  he  wrote  a  kind  of 
Gospel  Harmony2  which  makes  evident  in  ten  tables  those  statements 
of  the  Four  Gospels  which  are  common  to  all,  to  three,  or  to  two  — 
or  which  are  found  only  in  one  Gospel;  also  Biblical  Questions  and 
Answers  (nep\  twv  iu  edayyeXiotQ  CrjTfiparcov  xai  koazcov) 3  concerning 
the  Gospels,  extant  only  in  excerpts  and  fragments.  They  undertake 
to  reconcile  apparent  antilogies  in  the  Gospels,  such  as  affect  the 
genealogies  of  the  Savior,  His  burial,  resurrection,  etc.  Of  more  im- 
portance is  a  (fragmentary)  alphabetical  list  of  the  place-names  of  the 
Old  Testament,  with  description  and  name  of  each  site  as  it  was  in 
his  day  (jrsp}  rwv  zonixcov  ovopdrcov  rwv  h  rfj  ßeia  ypacprj,  not  printed 
in  Migne).  Eusebius  constructed  it  from  an  ancient  topography  of 
Palestine  and  Jerusalem ;  Jerome  translated  it  into  Latin  and  added  to 
its  contents  (§  93,  5).  Only  a  fragment  has  reached  us  of  his  work 
«On  Easter»  (nepl  ryjc,  too  iidaya  kopr/jcj^,  written  on  occasion  of 
the  discussions  at  the  Council  of  Nicaea  (325)  concerning  the  feast, 
and  well-known  because  of  its  beautiful  testimony  to  the  holy  sacrifice 
of  the  Mass. 

4.  APOLOGETIC  WORKS.  —  He  took  up  his  pen  on  many  oc- 
casions, and  always  with  success,  in  defence  of  the  Christian  religion 
and  against  paganism.  The  chief  characteristic  of  his  apologetical 
writings  is  the  vastness  of  their  historical  erudition.  The  Evangelical 
Preparation  fedayyshxrj  izpoitapaoxzurj*  in  fifteen  books  demon- 
strates the  incomparable  superiority  of  Christianity,  and  even  of 
Judaism,  over  all  the  religious  and  philosophical  systems  of  the 
heathens.  The  Evangelical  Demonstration  (edayysfaxy  aTrodet&Q)  ex- 
pounds in  twenty  books  the  thesis  that  Christianity  is  the  divine 
development  of  Judaism ;  only  ten  books  of  this  work  have  reached 
us6.  He  drew  up  a  compact  abridgment  of  these  two  large  works 
in  the  five  books  of  a  treatise  «On  the  appearance  of  God  among 
men»  (nep\  ttjq  ftsoyaveiaQ).  Its  Greek  text  is  extant  only  in  frag- 
ments7. Quite  similar  must  have  been  the  work  entitled  «A  general 
elementary  Introduction»  (y  xa&oXoo  aror/etwdfjQ  elaaywyrj) .  Almost 
the  only  extant  fragments  of  it  are  the  four  books  of  his  «Prophetic 
sayings»  (exXoyat  7rpo<p7]TixacJ  s,  in  which  he  expounds  the  Messianic 
prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament.  His  large  work  against  Porphyry 
(f  ca.  304)  in  twenty-nine  or  thirty  books,  twenty  of  which  were  known 
to  Saint  Jerome  9,  has  perished.  His  little  work  against  Hierocles,  pro- 
curator of  Bithynia  (ca.  303),  is  a  critique  of  the  portrait  of  Apollonius 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xxiv.   529—606.  2  Ib.,  xxii.   1275— 1292. 

3  Ib.,  xxii.  879—1016.  4  Ib.,  xxiv.  693—706.  5  Ib.,  xxi. 

6  Ib.,  xxii.   13—794.  7  Ib.,  xxiv.  609—690.  8  lb.,,  xxii.    1021  — 1262. 

9  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  81. 


§    62.      EUSEBIUS    OF    CAESAREA.  249 

of  Tyana  as  drawn  by  Philostratus.  Hierocles  had  plagiarized  in  order 
to  establish  a  parallel  between  Apollonius  and  Christ  (icpbq  za  Otto 
(Pdoazpdrou '  slg  WizolXoyvtov  rbv  Tuavia  Sea  tt]v  ^kpoxlel  7iapaAr)<pdeloav 
wjtoT)  ts  xal  tod  Xpiazou  auyxptatv)  K  Eusebius  shows  with  sarcastic 
acumen  that  the  true  source  of  the  work  of  Hierocles  was  the  highly 
idealized  portrait  of  the  Neo-Pythagorean  and  magician  Apollonius, 
or  merely  fables  and  legends  put  together  by  Flavius  Philostratus ;  in 
particular,  the  alleged  miracles  of  Apollonius  were  either  forgeries 
of  the  historian  or  demoniac  imitations  of  the  miracles  of  Christ. 

5.  DOCTRINAL  WRITINGS.  LETTERS.  HOMILIES.  —  Two  of  his 
doctrinal  works  belong  to  the  history  of  Arianism.  In  the  two  books 
«Against  Marcellus»  (xaTa  MapxeMooJ2  he  undertakes  to  prove  that 
Marcellus  of  Ancyra  (§  61,  3)  was  justly  deposed  by  the  Arians  at 
the  Council  of  Constantinople  (336),  on  account  of  the  identity  of  his 
Trinitarian  teaching  with  Sabellianism  which  was  condemned  in  the 
third  century.  The  three  books  of  his  work  On  ecclesiastical  theology 
(xepl  T7JQ  ExxArjcnaoTMrjQ  deoÄofiagJ8  are  an  exposition  and  defence 
of  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Logos.  Socrates4  and  Theodoret5  have 
preserved  for  us  a  letter  of  Eusebius  to  the  people  of  his  diocese 
in  which  he  explains  his  attitude  at  Nicaea  and  the  meaning  of  bpoooatoQ. 
Nicephorus  of  Constantinople  (7  826)  inserted  in  his  Antirrhetica  and 
criticised  sharply  the  principal  passages  of  a  letter  of  Eusebius  to 
Constantia,  the  sister  of  Constantine,  in  which  he  speaks  in  a  hostile 
sense  concerning  portraits  of  Christ.  Of  the  fourteen  homilies,  extant 
only  in  Latin,  and  attributed  to  him6,  some,  at  least,  are  certainly 
not  from  his  pen. 

6.  COLLECTED    WORKS     OF     EUSEBIUS.      TRANSLATIONS.       LITERATURE     ON 

eusebius.  —  The  manuscript-tradition  of  the  writings  of  Eusebius  is  de- 
scribed by  Preuschen,  in  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchristl.  Lit.,  i.  551 — 586. 
The  only  complete  edition  or  reprint  of  the  works  of  Eusebius  is  that  by 
Migne,  PG.,  xix — xxiv.  A  handy  edition  of  some  of  his  writings  is  that 
by  IV.  Di?idorf :  Praepar.  evang. ,  Demonstr.  evang. ,  Hist.  eccl. ,  Leipzig, 
1867  — 187 1,  4  vols.;  cf.  A.  C.  Headlam,  The  Editions  and  Mss.  of  Euse- 
bius, i.,  in  Journal  of  Theolog.  Studies  (1902),  iii.  93 — 102.  Nearly  all 
the  works  of  Eusebius  were  translated  into  Syriac,  many  of  them  also  into 
Armenian.  Selected  works  have  appeared  in  German  versions,  e.  g. 
M.  Stigloher  (Church  History,  Martyrs  of  Palestine),  Kempten,  1870,  and 
J.  Molzberger  (Life  of  Constantine),  ib.,  1880  (Bibl.  d.  Kirchenväter).  An 
English  version  of  the  Church  History,  with  a  commentary,  was  edited  by 
McGiffert,  and  one  of  the  two  works  on  Constantine  by  E.  Richardson,  in 
Select  Library  of  Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers  of  the  Christian  Church, 
ser.  II,  New  York,  1890,  i.  Fabricius,  Bibl.  Gr.  ed.  Harles,  vii.  335—518: 
De  Eusebio  Caesareensi  et  aliis  historiae  ecclesiasticae  atque  chronicorum 
scriptoribus  graecis.  F.  J.  Stein,  Eusebius,  Bischof  von  Cäsarea,  nach 
seinem  Leben,  seinen  Schriften  und  seinem  dogmatischen  Charakter,  Würz- 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xxii.  795—868.  2  Ib.,  xxiv.  707—826. 

3  Ib.,  xxiv.  825—1046.  4  Hist,  eccl.,  f.  8.  5  Hist,  eccl.,  i.   II. 

6  Migne,  PG.,  xxiv.   1047 — 1208. 


250  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

burg,  1859;  Salmon,  in  Dictionary  of  Christian  Biography,  London,  1880, 
ii.  308  —  355:  Eusebius  of  Caesarea;  Van  den  Gheyn,  S.  J.,  in  Vigouroux, 
Dictionnaire  de  la  Bible,  Paris,   1899,  ii.  2051  —  2056:  Eusebe. 

7.  separate  editions  and  special  researches.  —  Historical  writings. 
Eusebii  Pamph.  Caes.  episc.  Chronicon  bipartitum  nunc  primum  ex  arme- 
niaco  textu  in  latinum  conversum,  adnotationibus  auctum,  graecis  fragmentis 
exornatum,  opera  P.  I.  B.  Aucher,  Venice,  1818,  2  vols.  Eusebi  Chronicorum 
libri  duo.  Edidit  Alfred  Schoene,  Berlin,  1866— 1875,  2  vols.  Eusebi  Chroni- 
corum liber  prior.  Ed.  A.  Schoene.  Armeniacam  versionem  latine  factam  ad 
libros  manuscriptos  recensuit  H.  Petermami.  Graeca  fragmenta  collegit  et 
recognovit,  appendices  chronologicas  sex  adiecit  A.  Schoene,  1875.  (Eusebi 
Chronicorum  Canonum  quae  supersunt  ed.  A.  Schoene.  Armeniacam  versio- 
nem latine  factam  e  libris  manuscr.  rec.  H.  Petermann.  Hieronymi  ver- 
sionem e  libris  manuscr.  rec.  A.  Schoene.  Syriam  epitomen  latine  factam 
e  libro  Londinensi  rec.  E.  Roediger,  1866.)  Eusebii  Canonum  epitome  ex 
Dionysii  Telmaharenis  Chronico  (syriace)  petita,  sociata  opera  verterunt 
notisque  illustrarunt  C.  Siegfried  et  H  Gelzer,  Leipzig,  1884.  Cf.  A.  v.  Gut- 
schmid,  Untersuchungen  über  die  syrische  Epitome  der  Eusebischen  Canones 
(Progr.),  Stuttgart,  1886  (A.  v.  GutscJunid,  Kleine  Schriften,  herausgegeben 
von  Fr.  Rühl,  Leipzig,  1889,  i.  483 — 529);  A.  Schoene,  Die  Weltchronik  des 
Eusebius  in  ihrer  Bearbeitung  durch  Hieronymus,  Berlin,  1900;  C.  H. 
Turner,  The  Early  Episcopal  Lists,  i :  The  Chronicle  of  Eusebius,  in  Journal 
of  Theol.  Studies  (1900),  i.  181 — 200;  H.  Montzaka,  Die  Quellen  zu  den 
assyrisch-babylonischen  Nachrichten  in  Eusebius  Chronik,  in  Beiträge  zur 
alten  Geschichte  (1902),  pp.  351 — 405. 

The  editio  princeps  of  the  Church  History  and  of  the  two  works  on 
Constantine  (with  the  continuations  of  the  Church  History  of  Socrates, 
Sozomen,  Theodoret,  Evagrius,  Philostorgius,  Theodorus  Lector)  was  issued, 
by  commission  from  the  French  episcopate,  by  Henri  de  Valois  (Valesius, 
f  1676),  Paris,  1659— 1673,  and  again  in  1677,  3  vols.  It  was  reprinted  at 
Frankfort,  1672 — 1679,  and  Amsterdam,  1695;  W.  Reading  published  an 
improved  edition,  at  Cambridge,  1720,  3  vols.  New  recensions  of  the  text 
of  the  Church  History  have  been  made  by  F.  A.  Heinichen,  Leipzig,  1827 
to  1828,  3  vols. ;  E.  Burton,  Oxford,  1838,  2  vols;  H.Laemmer,  Schaffhausen, 
1859 — 1862,  6  fasc.  In  1830  Heinichen  edited  the  two  works  on  Constantine 
and  in  1840  (on  the  appearance  of  Burtons  edition)  he  added  Supplementa 
to  his  own  edition  of  the  Church  History.  The  Latin  paraphrase  of  Rufinus 
was  edited  anew  by  Th.  Mommsen,  in  the  Griechische  christliche  Schrift- 
steller der  ersten  drei  Jahrhunderte,  Eusebius,  Leipzig,  1903,  ii.  1  (Booki— v); 
cf.  A.  Harnack,  in  Berlin.  Sitzungsberichte  ^903) ,  pp.  300 — 307.  There 
are  also  handy  editions  of  the  Church  History  by  A.  Schwegler,  Tübingen, 
1852,  and  W.  Dindorf,  Leipzig,  1871  (§  62,  6).  One  to  form  part  of  Nizzini's 
«Bibliotheca  Sanctorum  Patrum»  is  announced.  A  very  old  Syriac  version 
of  the  Church  History  was  published  by  P.  Bedjan ,  Leipzig,  1897,  also 
by  W.  Wright  and  N.  McLean,  Cambridge,  1898;  E.  Nestle,  Die  Kirchen- 
geschichte des  Eusebius,  aus  dem  Syrischen  ins  Deutsche  übersetzt,  in 
Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  new  series,  Leipzig,  1901,  vi.  2  ;  Id.,  in  Zeit- 
schrift d.  d.  Morgenl.  Gesellsch.  (1902),  lvi.  335 — 564.  A  fifth-century 
Armenian  version  from  the  Syriac  was  published  at  Venice,  1877.  Eu- 
sebius' Kirchengeschichte,  Buch  VI  und  VII.  Aus  dem  Armenischen  von 
E.  Preuschen,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  new  series,  Leipzig,  1902, 
vii.  3.  In  the  edition  of  Wright  and  McLean  the  Syriac  text  is  followed 
by  a  comparison  between  it  and  the  Armenian.  The  works  on  Constan- 
tine have  been  recently  edited  by  Ivar  A.  Heikel,  in  the  Griechische  christ- 


§    62.      EUSEBIUS    OF    CAESAREA.  25 1 

liehe  Schriftsteller  der  ersten  drei  Jahrhunderte,  Leipzig,  1902,  i.  Fr.  Over- 
beck,  Über  die  Anfänge  der  Kirchengeschichtschreibung  (Progr.),  Basel, 
1892  ;  Id.,  Die  Bischofslisten  und  die  apostolische  Nachfolge  in  der  Kirchen- 
geschichte des  Eusebius  (Progr.),  Basel,  1898;  A.  Halmel,  Die  Entstehung 
der  Kirchengeschichte  des  Eusebius  von  Cäsarea,  Essen,  1896;  P.  Meyer, 
De  vita  Constantini  Eusebiana  (Progr.),  Bonn,   1882. 

The  following  works  treat  of  special  questions  and  problems  connected 
with  the  Church  History :  H.  S.  Lawlor,  Two  notes  on  Eusebius  in  Herm- 
athena  (1900),  xi.  10—49  (cf.  §  33,  3);  G.  Mercati,  Sul  testo  e  sul  senso 
di  Eusebio,  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  16,  in  Note  di  letteratura  biblica  e  cristiana 
antica  (Studi  e  Testi),  Rome,  1901,  pp.  47 — 60;  W.  E.  Crum ,  Eusebius 
and  Coptic  Church  Histories,  London,  1902  (cf.  §  99,  1);  P.  Corssen,  Zu 
Euseb.,  Hist,  eccl.,  iii.  39  und  iii.  15  ,  in  Zeitschr.  für  die  neutestamentl. 
Wissensch.  (1902),  iii.  242  —  246;  E.  Schwartz,  Zu  Eusebius'  Kirchen- 
geschichte: I.  Das  Martyrium  Jakobus  des  Gerechten,  IL  Zur  Abgar- 
legende,  in  Zeitschr.  für  die  neutestamentl.  Wissensch.  (1903),  iv.  48 — 66; 
Fr.  Herklotz,  'QßXia?  (Ens.,  Hist,  eccl.,  ii.  23),  in  Zeitschrift  für  kath.  Theol. 
(1903),  xxvii.  572 — 574;  A.  Crivellucci,  Delia  fede  storica  di  Eusebio  nella 
vita  di  Costantino,  Livorno,  1888;  V.  Schnitze,  Quellenuntersuchungen  zur 
«Vita  Constantini»  des  Eusebius,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  Kirchengesch.  (1893 — 1894), 
xiv.  503 — 555.  Concerning  the  genuineness  of  the  documents,  edicts  and 
letters,  and  of  a  discourse  of  the  emperor  in  the  Vita  Constantini,  see  O.  Seeck, 
in  Zeitschr.  f.  Kirchengesch.  (1898),  xxviii.  321 — 345  (they  are  genuine), 
and  A.  Crivellucci,  in  Studi  storici  (1898),  vii.  411 — 429  453 — 459  (some 
documents  are  not  genuine) ;  also  J.  A.  Heikel,  in  the  edition  mentioned 
above,  pp.  lxvi — lxxxiii  (genuine ;  but  he  denies  the  genuineness,  or  even 
the  composition  by  Eusebius,  of  the  Oratio  in  sanctorum  coetum,  sometimes 
printed  as  the  fifth  book  of  the  Vita  Constantini).  C.  Weyman,  Eusebius 
von  Cäsarea  und  sein  Leben  Konstantins,  in  Histor.-polit.  Blätter  (1902), 
cxxix.  873—892 ;  y.  Viteau,  De  Eusebii  Caesariensis  duplici  opusculo  itspt 
tü>v  h  llaXaianvr)  fxapTupTQaavrtov  (These),  Paris,  1893 ;  Br.  Violet,  Die  pälesti- 
nensischen  Märtyrer  des  Eusebius  von  Cäsarea,  ihre  ausführlichere  Fassung 
und  deren  Verhältnis  zur  kürzeren,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  —  new 
series,  Leipzig,  1896,  xiv.  4;  A.  Hahnel ,  Die  palästinensischen  Märtyrer 
des  Eusebius  von  Cäsarea  in  ihrer  zweifachen  Form,  Essen,  1898;  G.  Mer- 
cati, I  martiri  di  Palestina  d'Eusebio  di  Cesarea  nel  codice  Sinaitico,  in 
Rendiconti  del  R.  Istituto  Lombardo  di  scienze  e  lettere,  ser.  II,  Milan, 
1897,  xxx. 

8.      SEPARATE      EDITIONS     AND      SPECIAL     RESEARCHES      (CONTINUED).     

Exegetical  works.  His  commentaries  on  the  Psalms  are  printed  in  B.  de 
Montfaucon,  Collectio  nova  Patrum  et  scriptorum  graecor. ,  Paris,  1706, 
2  vols;  supplements  in  A.  Mai,  Nova  Patrum  Bibl. ,  Rome,  1847,  iv. 
part.  I,  65 — 107;  additions  in  Pitra,  Analecta  sacra,  Paris,  1883,  iii.  365 
to  520.  New  and  notable  fragments  of  commentaries  on  the  Psalms  in 
Mercati,  Alcune  note  di  letteratura  patristica,  Milan,  1898.  The  exposition 
of  the  Canticle  of  canticles,  edited  by  J.  Meursius  (Eusebii,  Polychronii, 
Pselli  in  Canticum  canticorum  expositiones  graece,  Leiden,  1617,  pp.  1  —  74) 
is  not  only  not  the  work  of  Eusebius,  but  contains  nothing  from  his  pen. ' 
Its  proemium,  (apparently)  attributed  to  Eusebius,  was  printed  by  Pitra 
(1.  c.  pp.  529—537)  because  it  had  been  left  out  by  Migne.  For  more  de- 
tailed information  concerning  this  commentary  on  the  Canticle  of  can- 
ticles, see  Th.  Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons 
und  der  altlkirchl.  Lit.,  Erlangen,  1883,  ii.  238  ff.  Mai  (1.  c.)  gives  a  frag- 
mentary Commentarius  in  Lucae  evangelium  (pp.   159 — 207)    and  very  in- 


252  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

significant  fragments  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (p.  207),  Daniel  (pp.  314 
to  316),  and  Proverbs  (p.  316).  The  same  author  published  copious  re- 
mains of  the  three  books  of  Quaestiones  et  solutiones  evangelicae,  i.  e. 
a)  an  Epitome  selecta  ex  compositis  ab  Eusebio  ad  Stephanum  circa  evan- 
gelia  quaestionibus  ac  solutionibus ,  from  the  first  two  books  (Greek  and 
Latin,  pp.  217 — 254,  16  questions),  and  an  Epitome  selecta  ex  eiusdem 
Eusebii  ad  Marinum  quaestionum  evangelicarum  libro,  i.  e.  from  the  third 
book  (Greek  and  Latin,  pp.  255 — 267,  4  questions);  b)  fragments  of  the 
same  work,  from  the  two  first  books  (pp.  268 — 282;  279  —  282  are  Syriac 
fragments)  and  from  the  third  book  (pp.  283 — 303);  c)  Ex  quaestionibus 
Eusebii  excerpta  apud  SS.  Ambrosium  et  Hieronymum  (pp.  304 — 309). 
An  eleventh-century  codex  of  the  Gospel  Harmony  (in  ten  tables)  was 
published  in  photographic  facsimile,  with  commentary,  by  A.  Valentini, 
Brescia,  1887.  Eusebii  Pamph.  Onamasticon  urbium  et  locorum  S.  Scrip- 
turae.  Graece  cum  lat.  Hieronymi  interpretatione  ediderunt  F.  Larson* 
et  G.  Parthey,  Berlin,  1862.  The  same  works  (of  Eusebius  and  Jerome) 
are  edited  by  P.  de  Lagarde ,  Onamastica  sacra,  Göttingen,  1870,  2.  ed. 
1887;  P.  Tho?nsen ,  Palästina  nach  dem  Onamasticon  des  Eusebius,  in 
Zeitschr.  d.  d.  Palästinavereins  (1903),  xxvi.  97 — 142  145 — 188;  E.  Kloster- 
mann, Eusebius'  Schrift  irepl  twv  totuxSv  avopaTuw  iv  ty)  Oeia  Ypa^j,  in  Texte 
und  Untersuchungen,  new  series,  Leipzig,  1902,  viii.  2  b.  Klostermann  has 
edited  anew  the  Onamasticon  of  Eusebius,  in  Die  Griech.  christl.  Schrift- 
steller etc.,  Leipzig,  1904,  iii.  1.  The  fragment  of  the  De  solemnitate  pa- 
schali  was  first  published  by  Mai,  1.  c,  pp.  208 — 216. 

Apologetic  writings.  The  Praeparatio  evangelica  was  edited  by  F.  A. 
Heinichen,  Leipzig,  1842 — 1843,  2  vols.,  and  by  Th.  Gaisford,  Oxford,  1843, 
4  vols. ;  cf.  J.  A.  Heikel,  De  Praeparationis  evangelicae  Eusebii  edendae 
ratione  quaestiones,  Helsingfors,  1888.  Gaisford  also  edited  the  Demon- 
stratio evangelica,  Oxford,  1852,  2  vols.;  Mai  discovered  and  published 
in  Nova  Patrum  Bibl.,  iv.,  pars  I,  a  small  fragment  of  the  fifteenth  book 
of  the  Demonstratio.  A  new  edition  of  the  Demonstratio,  with  an  English 
version,  has  been  brought  out  by  C.  H.  Gifford,  London,  1903,  4  vols.  A 
Syriac  version  of  the  De  theophania  was  edited  by  S.  Lee  from  a  Codex 
of  the  year  411,  London,  1842,  with  an  English  translation,  Cambridge, 
1843.  Important  fragments  of  the  Greek  text  were  discovered  by  Mai  and 
published,  1.  c,  pp.  108 — 159  310 — 312.  H.  Gressmann ,  Studien  zu  Eu- 
sebius' Theophanie,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  Leipzig,  1903,  viii.  3. 
Th.  Gaisford  also  edited  the  Eclogae  propheticae,  Oxford,  1842  ;  cf.  Nolte, 
in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1861),  xliii.  95  —  109.  Some  small  fragments  of  other 
books  of  the  Generalis  elementaria  introductio  are  in  Mai,  1.  c,  pp.  316 
to  317.  The  Adversus  Hieroclem,  Contra  Marcellum  and  De  ecclesia- 
stica  theologia  were  published  by  Gaisford,  Oxford,  1852.  The  Adversus 
Hieroclem  is  also  found  in  the  edition  of  Flavius  Philostratus  by  C.  L. 
Kayser,  Leipzig,  1870— 187 1,  2  vols.  (i.  469 — 413);  M.  Faulhaber ,  Die 
griechischen  Apologeten  der  klassischen  Väterzeit:  I.  Eusebius  von  Cä- 
sarea,  Würzburg,  1895;  cf.  A.  Seitz ,  Die  Apologie  des  Christentums  bei 
den  Griechen  des  4.  und  5.  Jahrhunderts,  Würzburg,  1895. 

Doctrinal  Writings.  We  have  already  mentioned  Gaisford 's  editions  of 
the  Contra  Marcellum  and  the  De  ecclesiastica  theologia.  See  Pitra, 
Spicil.  Solesmense ,  i.  338  ff.,  for  extracts  from  the  Letter  to  Constantia 
in  the  Antirrhetica  of  Nicephorus.  For  the  fourteen  Latin  homilies  see 
§  61,  2. 

9.  eustathius  of  ANTiocH.  —  St.  Eustathius  of  Antioch  (§  62,  1)  who 
died   in  exile  in  360  at  Trajanopolis  in  Thrace,    left  many  dogmatic   and 


§    63.      ST.    ATHANASIUS.  253 

exegetical  writings,  only  one  of  which,  it  seems,  has  reached  us :  his  treatise 
on  the  Witch  of  Endor  and  the  apparition  to  Samuel  (i  Kings,  xxviii. 
Septuagint)  written  against  Origen  (Migne,  PG. ,  xviii.  613 — 674).  Eusta- 
thius  denies  the  reality  of  the  apparition  (cf.  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  §  69,  2) 
while  at  the  same  time  he  vigourously  refutes  the  arbitrary  allegorizing  of 
Origen.  A.  Jahn  brought  out  a  new  edition  of  this  treatise,  together  with 
the  homily  it  refers  to,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  Leipzig,  1886, 
ii.  4.  The  so-called  Commentarius  in  Hexaemeron  {Migne ,  PG. ,  xviii. 
707 — 794)  and  Allocutio  ad  imperatorem  Constantinum  in  Concilio  Nicaeno 
(ib.,  673 — 676)  are  spurious.  To  the  previously  known  fragments  of  his  lost 
works  Pitra  and  Martin  have  added  three  Greek  and  ten  Syriac  fragments'; 
in  Analecta  sacra  ii.,  Prolog,  xxxviii — xl,  and  iv.  210 — 213  441 — 443. 

§  63.     St.  Athanasius. 

1.  HIS  LIFE.  —  The  life  and  labors  of  St.  Athanasius  presents  a 
complete  antithesis  to  the  weak  and  vacillating  character  of  Eusebius 
of  Caesarea.  The  former  is  the  steadfast  champion  of  the  true  faith, 
«the  pillar  of  the  Church»,  6  azoloc,  ttjq  ixxtyaiag,  as  St.  Gregory 
of  Nazianzus  calls  him  *.  He  is ,  at  the  same  time ,  the  God-given 
physician  of  her  wounds,  larpbq  zcov  kv  tcuq  ixxXrjataiQ  äppcoarrjfidTCüv, 
says  St.  Basil  the  Great2,  truly  one  of  the  most  imposing  figures  in 
all  ecclesiastical  history.  His  life  and  sufferings  are  most  closely 
connected  with  the  'history  of  Arianism.  Athanasius  was  born  about 
295  at  Alexandria  and  while  quite  young  attracted  the  attention  of 
Alexander,  bishop  of  that  city.  As  a  youth  he  was  for  a  con- 
siderable period  under  the  direction  of  the  great  Saint  Anthony,  the 
patriarch  of  the  Cenobites.  The  other  circumstances  of  his  child- 
hood and  youth  are  unknown  to  us.  In  319  Alexander  ordained 
him  deacon  and  made  him  his  secretary  and  counsellor.  He  accom- 
panied Alexander  to  the  Council  of  Nicaea  in  325,  and  proved  him- 
self a  powerful  adversary  of  the  Arians  3.  Alexander  died  April  17., 
328,  and  Athanasius  was  unanimously  chosen  by  the  people  to  be 
his  successor4.  At  once  the  most  hateful  accusations  were  brought 
against  him  by  the  Arians,  all  of  which  he  conclusively  disproved. 
Nevertheless  he  was  condemned  by  the  Arians  at  their  Synod  of 
Tyre  in  335  and  banished  by  Constantine  to  Trier,  whence  he  re- 
turned to  Alexandria  in  338  after  the  Emperor's  death.  But  the  hatred 
of  the  Arians  was  not  satisfied ;  Constantius  sided  with  them,  and  in 
340  Athanasius  was  again  obliged  to  take  refuge  in  flight.  The 
Arian  Pistus,  and  afterward  his  fellow  heretic  George  of  Cappa- 
docia,  took  possession  of  his  see  amid  many  bloody  excesses.  Pope 
Julius  (337 — 352)  pronounced  Athanasius  an  innocent  man,  and  the 
great  Synod  of  Sardica  in  Moesia  (343  or  344)  declared  him  the 
rightful  occupant  of  the  see  of  Alexandria.  However,  it  was  only  in 
346  (Oct.  31.)  that  he  was  enabled  to  return  to  his  native  city.    After 

1  Or.   21,  n.   26.  2  Ep.  82.  3  Socr.,  Hist,  eccl.,  i.   8. 

4  Äthan.,  Apol.  c.  Arian,  c.  6. 


254  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

the  death  of  his  brother  Constans  (350)  the  emperor  Constantius 
was  again  moved  by  Arian  intrigue  to  oppress  the  orthodox  believers. 
Yielding  to  imperial  behests  the  Synods  of  Aries  (353)  and  Milan 
(355)  deposed  Athanasius  from  his  see,  into  which  his  old  enemy,  the 
Arian  George,  violently  intruded  himself  (356),  while  Athanasius  fled 
to  the  monks  in  the  deserts  of  Egypt.  Julian  the  Apostate  recalled 
the  banished  bishops  (362);  by  doing  so  he  hoped  to  increase  the 
discords  of  the  Christians.  But  the  conciliatory  attitude  of  Athanasius, 
particularly  at  the  Synod  of  Alexandria  (362),  opened  a  way  to  the 
return  of  many  Semiarians.  For  this  he  was  banished  again  in  362, 
on  the  pretext  that  he  was  a  disturber  of  the  peace.  He  was  allowed 
to  return  by  the  orthodox  Jovian  (363 — 364)  who  treated  him  with 
much  distinction.  Valens,  the  successor  of  Jovian  (364 — 378),  was 
a  bigoted  Arian  and  a  cruel  persecutor  both  of  the  orthodox  and  the 
Semiarians.  A  fifth  time  Athanasius  was  compelled  to  quit  the  city 
and  to  travel  on  (in  the  middle  of  365)  the  road  of  exile.  So 
great,  however,  was  the  resistance  offered  by  his  flock  that  at  the 
end  of  four  months  Valens  allowed  him  to  return  to  Alexandria,  where 
the  faithful  shepherd  was  henceforth  permitted  to  live  in  peace  until 
his  death  (May  2.,  373).  He  had  become  the  standard  bearer  of  all 
the  Catholics  of  the  East,  while  in  the  whole  West,  Tzdoy  rfj  duast, 
says  St.  Basil  *,  no  one  was  held  in  more  general  esteem. 

2.  APOLOGETIC  WRITINGS.  —  In  the  Benedictine  edition  the  series 
of  his  works  opens  with  two  apologetic  treatises :  Oratio  contra  gentes 
(Xojoq  xara  EAAyvcov)2  and  Oratio  de  incarnatione  Verbi  (koyoc,  ntp\ 
TTjC,  EvavftpcoTzrjGEtoQ  zoo  Xoyou) 3 ,  titles  that  are  found  apparently  in 
all  the  manuscripts.  They  are  in  reality  parts  of  a  homogeneous 
work  known  to  St.  Jerome4  as  Adver  sum  gentes  duo  libri.  The 
first  book  lays  bare  in  all  its  nudity  and  nullity  the  pagan  pantheism 
and  establishes  Christian  monotheism  as  the  reasonable  and  necessary 
religion.  The  second  book  defends  the  Christian  faith  in  the  In- 
carnation of  the  Divine  Word  against  the  objections  of  Jews  and 
pagans.  The  work  was  written  before  the  Arian  controversies,  about 
320.  It  is  a  genuine  work  of  Athanasius ;  the  efforts  of  Schultze  and 
Dräseke  to  prove  the  contrary  have  utterly  failed. 

3.  DOGMATICO-POLEMICAL  WRITINGS.  —  Nearly  all  his  doctrinal 
works  are  devoted  to  the  overthrow  of  Arianism.  The  longest  and 
most  valuable  of  them  is  the  Orationes  IV  contra  Arianos  (xara 
'Apetavwv  Xuyot  o)5.  The  first  book  sets  forth  and  develops  the 
Catholic  doctrine  of  the  eternal  origin  of  the  Son  from  the  Father 
and  the  substantial  unity  of  both ;  the  second  and  the  third  books  are 
devoted  to  a  detailed  exposition  of  the  pertinent  scriptural  texts ;  the 
fourth  deals  with  the  personal  distinction  of  the  Son  from  the  Father. 

1  Ep.  66.  2  Migne,  PC,  xxv.   3—96.  s  Ib.,  xxv.  95  —  198. 

4  De  viris  ill.,  c.  87.  5  Migne,  PC,  xxvi.    11 — 526. 


§    6$.      ST.    ATHANASIUS.  255 

This  work  was  written  in  the  deserts  of  Egypt  during  his  third  exile 
(356—362).  About  the  same  time  he  wrote  the  four  letters  to 
Serapion,  bishop  of  Thmuis  (xpbq  lepairiawa  imaroXai  o) %  in  refutation 
of  those  who  admitted  the  divinity  of  the  Son,  but  maintained  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  was  a  creature.  Quite  akin  to  the  latter  work  is  the  treatise 
on  the  Trinity  and  the  Holy  Ghost  (Liber  de  Trinitate  et  de  Spiritu 
Sancto)  2.  It  was  written  about  365  and  is  extant  only  in  Latin.  Some 
writers  treat  as  spurious  the  work  «On  the  Incarnation  of  the  Divine 
Word  and  against  the  Arians»  (nep\  tyjq  Ivadpxoo  enupaveiaQ  zoo  deoo 
Xoyoü  xai  xazä  'Apstavcov)3.  Brief  outlines  of  the  «Faith  of  the  Catholic 
Church»  are  found  in  the  letter  of  the  year  363  to  the  Emperor  Jovian 
(npoQ  'Icoßtavbv  nepi  TitazecogJ  4  and  the  mutilated  Sermo  7naior  de  fide 
(itep\  Tziarscoc,  Xoyoq  0  psi&vj 5.  Hoss  and  Stiilcken  have  attacked  in 
vain  (1899)  the  genuineness  of  the  last  two  works.  Caspari  was  inclined 
(1866)  to  attribute  to  one  of  Athanasius'  immediate  successors,  Peter 
or  Timothy,  the  Interpretatio  in  symbolum  (eppyveia  elg  zb  oopßoAov)  6. 
The  question  about  the  genuineness  of  the  profession  of  faith  known 
as  De  incamatione  Dei  Verbi  (nepi  ztjq  (rapxcoaecoQ  zoo  Ssoij  Xoyoo) 7 
is  as  old  as  the  fifth  or  sixth  century.  Caspari  declared  (1879),  and 
rightly,  that  it  belongs  to  Apollinaris  of  Laodicea  (§61,  4).  The 
so-called  Athanasian  Creed,  known  also  as  the  Symbolum  Quicumque 
from  its  first  word8  is  an  admirable  resume  of  the  doctrine  of  Atha- 
nasius, but  is  not  his  work.  It  is  rather  of  Western  origin,  and  was 
thought  to  have  been  composed  during  the  fifth  century  in  Southern 
Gaul.  Burn  inclined  at  first  (1896)  to  the  authorship  of  Honoratus  of 
Aries,  but  later  (1900)  accepted  with  Turner  the  authorship  of  Eu- 
sebius  of  Vercelli;  Ommaney  declared  (1897)  for  Vincent  of  Lerins. 
All  these  conjectures  are  now  set  aside  by  Künstle's  researches.  In 
his  Antipriscilliana  he  shows  that  the  Athanasian  Creed  was  written 
in  Spain  and  was  directed  against  Priscillianism.  This  Creed  was 
known  in  the  Orient  only  at  a  later  date  and  never  found  a  place  in 
the  liturgy;  in  the  West  it  was  recited  at  Prime  since  the  ninth  century, 
was  used  by  the  clergy  in  giving  popular  instruction  as  a  summary  of 
Christian  doctrine,  and  was  held  in  particular  esteem  as  a  basis  and 
criterion  of  ecclesiastical  faith.  —  A  treatise,  written  before  the  year 
343,  on  Matt.  xi.  27 :  «All  things  are  given  to  me  by  the  Father»  9,  a 
text  much  misused  by  the  Arians,  is  apparently  only  a  fragment  of  the 
original.  Very  important  are  three  letters  about  Christological  doctrine 
written  about  371:  the  first  to  Epictetus,  bishop  of  Corinth  (izpbc, 
'EnixTjßZQV  imaxoTiOv  Kopiv&oo  xazä  zwv  alpenxcbv)  10;  a  second  to  Adel- 
phius,  bishop  and  confessor  (npbg  WdiXyiov  hxioxoTZov  xdi  bpoXoyrjz^u 

1  Ib.,   xxvi.   529  —  676.  2  Ib.,  xxvi.    1 191  — 1213.             3  Ib.,  xxvi.  983 — 1028. 

i  Ib.,  xxvi.   813 — 820.  5  Ib.,  xxv.    199 — 208.               6  Ib.,  xxvi.  1231  — 1232. 

7  Ib.,  xxviii.   25 — 30.  8  Ib.,  xxviii.    1582 — 1583. 

9  Ib.,  xxv.   207—220.  10  Ib.,  xxvi.    1049 — 1070. 


256  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

xazd  lApetavcov)1]  a  third  to  the  philosopher  Maximus  ftrpbg  Md$tpou 
<pt?J)ao(pov)2.  The  letter  to  Epictetus  was  highly  esteemed  by  the 
contemporaries  of  Athanasius ;  it  was  copied  in  full  by  St.  Epiphanius 
in  his  work  against  heresies3.  The  Nestorians  interpolated  it,  but 
St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria 4  was  able  to  convict  them  of  fraud  by  means 
of  ancient  manuscripts  (dvziypcupa  izaXatd)  of  the  letter.  The  so-called 
«Two  books  against  Apollinaris»  (xazd  Anolhvapioo  Myot  ß')5  are 
referred  by  the  Benedictine  editors  to  the  last  years  of  Athanasius. 
The  name  of  Apollinaris  does  not  appear  in  the  work  itself,  and 
there  are  reasons  for  doubting  its  authenticity.  Dräseke  holds  (1889) 
that  these  two  books  were  composed  at  Alexandria  soon  after  the 
death  of  the  Saint,  but  by  two  distinct  persons,  the  first  (probably) 
by  Didymus  the  Blind,  and  the  second  (probably)  by  Ambrosius  of 
Alexandria,  a  disciple  of  Didymus 6.  The  following  works  and  others 
are  rightly  regarded  as  of  dubious  parentage:  Testimonia  ex  Sacra 
Scriptura  de  naturali  communione  similis  esse?itiae  inter  Patrem  et 
Filhim  et  Spiritum  Sanctum1 ,  Epistola  catholica*,  Refutatio  hypo- 
crisis  Meletii  et  Eusebii  Samosatensis  adv.  consubstantialitatem9. 
The  Disput  atio  habit  a  in  concilio  Nicaeno  contra  Arium 10,  Doctrina 
ad  Antiochum  ducern  u,  Quaestiones  ad  Antiochum  ducem 12,  and  several 
other  works,  are  known  to  be  spurious. 

4.  HISTORICO-POLEMICAL  WRITINGS.  —  In  his  conflicts  with  the 
Arians,  Athanasius  often  found  himself  compelled  to  appeal  to  the 
truth  of  history.  Three  apologies  were  written  by  him,  with  a  view  to 
justify  his  conduct:  the  Apology  against  the  Arians  (dTzoloy-qzixbc, 
xara  'ApsiavüuJ13,  written  about  350  and  as  an  historical  authority 
of  primary  importance;  the  Apology  to  the  Emperor  Constantius 
(rcpbc,  zbu  ßaodia  Kcovozdvziov  dr:oXoyia)u,  written  in  356;  and  the 
Apology  for  his  flight  (dizoXoyia  7iep\  t?jq  fi>y9jq  auzoo)  15,  written  in 
357  or  358.  Two  encyclical  letters  hold  up  to  public  scorn  the 
unworthy  conduct  of  his  enemies:  one  written  in  341  to  all  the 
bishops  (httatotö)  eyz6xXioq)n,  and  another  in  356  to  the  bishops  of 
Egypt  and  Libya  firpog  zouq  irrcaxoTrouQ  "AtyoTtzou  xat  Atßuyg  imozoty 
eyxoxXioq  xazd  Apeiavwv)  17.  The  letters  on  the  decrees  of  the  Council 
of  Nicaea 18  and  on  the  doctrine  of  Dionysius 19,  bishop  of  Alexandria, 
belong  to  the  years  350 — 354  (§40,  3).  The  letter  to  the  monks20, 
mutilated  at  the  beginning,  gives  a  history  of  Arianism  from  335 — 357, 
and  is  usually  entitled  Historia  Arianorum.     The  brief  letter  to  the 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xxvi.   1071  — 1084.  2  Ib.,  xxvi.    1085 — 1090. 

3  Haer.   77.              4  Ep.  40  and  45.              5  Migne,  PG.,  xxvi.    1093 — 1166. 

6  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  126.              7  Mig?ie,  PG.,  xxviii.  29 — 80. 

8  Ib.,  xxviii.  81 — 84.  9  Ib.,  xxviii.  85—90.               10  Ib.,  xxviii.  439 — 502. 

11  Ib.,  xxviii.   555  —  590.  12  Ib.,   xxviii.   597—708.             13  Ib.,  xxv.  247—410. 

M  Ib.,  xxv.   595—642.  15  Ib.,  xxv.  643—680.                16  Ib.,  xxv.  221—240. 

17  Ib.,  xxv.  537—594-  18  Ib.,  xxv.  415—476.                19  Ib.,  xxv.  479—522. 

20  Ib.,  xxv.  691  —  796. 


§    6$.      ST.    ATHANASIUS.  257 

bishop  Serapion1,  written  soon  after,  358,  relates  the  terrible  death  of 
Arius.  A  letter  of  the  year  359  reviews  the  history  of  the  doings  of 
the  Councils  of  Rimini  in  Italy  and  of  Seleucia  in  Isauria  of  the  same 
year2.  Two  letters  to  Lucifer3,  bishop  of  Cagliari,  extant  in  Latin 
only  and  probably  written  in  Latin,  perhaps  in  360,  give  lively  expres- 
sion to  his  admiration  for  the  firm  resistance  of  Lucifer  to  the  at- 
tacks of  the  Arians.  The  synodal  letter  to  the  people  of  Antioch 
(b  TTpbg  touq  'AvTwyeiq,  to/jloq)  4  and  the  letter  to  Rufinianus 5  treat  of 
the  measures  taken  at  the  Council  of  Alexandria  (362)  with  regard  to 
the  reception  of  the  Arians  to  ecclesiastical  communion.  The  letter 
to  the  bishops  of  (Western)  Africa 6  warns  them  against  the  intrigues 
of  the  Arians,  and  may  have  been  written  about  369. 

5.  EXEGETICAL  WORKS.  —  We  possess ,  apparently,  only  frag- 
ments of  his  exegetical  writings.  They  have  come  down  in  Catenae 
or  Catenae-like  compilations,  and  their  respective  authenticity  is  not 
free  from  suspicion.  The  most  important  of  them  belong  to  a  com- 
mentary on  the  Psalms7,  and  have  reached  us  through  the  Catenae 
of  Psalms  of  Nicetas  of  Serrae  (end  of  the  eleventh  century).  This 
compiler  usually  draws  his  literal  interpretation  of  the  Scripture 
text  from  Theodoret  of  Cyrus  and  the  mystical  exposition  mostly 
from  Athanasius,  who  manifests,  here  at  least,  a  decided  predi- 
lection for  allegorical  exegesis  and  application  of  the  biblical  text. 
In  the  Benedictine  edition  these  fragments  of  Psalm-commentaries 
are  preceded  by  a  long  letter  to  a  certain  Marcellinus8  in  which 
Athanasius  expresses  his  great  joy  at  the  interest  his  correspondent 
takes  in  the  Psalms;  the  latter  is  assured  that  a  profound  study  of 
them  will  prove  very  instructive  and  useful.  While  the  authenticity 
of  this  letter  is  beyond  doubt,  it  is  not  at  all  certain  that  it  is  in 
any  way  related  to  the  commentary  which  follows.  In  1 746,  a  second 
commentary  on  the  Psalms  was  published  by  N.  Antonelli  under  the 
name  of  St.  Athanasius9;  it  confines  itself  to  the  exposition  of  the 
titles  of  the  Psalms  and  to  a  simple  paraphrase  of  the  text.  At  present 
this  commentary  is  not  considered  to  be  by  our  Saint,  but  is  attributed 
to  Hesychius  of  Jerusalem.  St.  Jerome  mentions10  among  the  works 
of  the  Saint  a  Liber  de  Psalmorum  titulis ,  but  the  identity  of  this 
work  with  the  Antonelli  commentary  is  very  doubtful.  Photius  had  in 
his  hands  a  commentary  of  Athanasius  on  Ecclesiastes  and  the  Can- 
ticle of  canticles  n.  Fragments  of  a  commentary  on  Job  are  printed  in 
the  Benedictine  edition 12.    In  the  same  collection  are  found  fragments 

1  Ib.,  xxv.   685  —  690.  2  Ib.,  xxvi.   681—794. 

3  Ib.,  xxvi.    1 181  — 1 186.  4  Ib.,  xxvi.    795 — 810. 

5  Ib.,  xxvi.    1 179  — 1 182.  6  Ib.,  xxvi.    1029  — 1 048. 

7  lb.,  xxvii.   55  —  590;  some  new  fragments  were  published,  in   1888,  by  Pitra. 

8  Ib.,  xxvii.    11—46.  9  Ib.,  xxvii.  649—1344.  10  De  viris  ill.,  c.  87. 

11  Bibl.  Cod.    139. 

12  Migne,  PC,  xxvii.    1343 — 1348;  other  fragments  were  added  by  Pitra,  in   1888. 
Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  17 


258  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

of  a  commentary  on  the  Canticle  of  canticles 1 ,  St.  Matthew 2, 
St.  Luke3  and  on  1  Corinthians4.  All  these  exegetical  materials 
have  been  drawn  from  the  Catenae.  The  so-called  Synopsis  Scrip- 
turae  Sacrae  (oovoipio,  iTtirofioc,  ryjc,  SetaQ  Ypa<p?jc)5,  a  work  that  de- 
scribes the  contents  of  all  the  scriptural  books,  in  many  places  with 
much  acumen  and  fulness,  was  not  written  by  our  Saint. 

6.  ASCETICAL  WORKS.  —  In  357  (365?)  Athanasius  composed  a 
biography  of  St.  Anthony  fßiog  xal  tcoXitsio.  too  baiou  irarpoQ  fyju&v 
\4vT(ovioo*)  as  the  model  of  a  life  consecrated  to  the  service  of  God. 
It  was  translated  into  Latin  by  Evagrius  of  Antioch  (f  393)  and  con- 
tributed much,  both  in  East  and  West,  to  the  growing  enthusiasm 
for  the  ascetic  and  monastic  life.  In  the  Benedictine  edition  the  Latin 
translation  is  joined  to  the  Greek  text.  It  is  an  authentic  and  trust- 
worthy work;  the  attacks  made  on  it  in  these  respects  by  Weingarten 
(1877)  have  been  successfully  refuted  by  Eichhorn  and  Mayer  (1888). 
The  genuineness  of  the  Syntagma  doctrinae  ad  monachos  (oovraypa 
dtdaaxaXiaq  xpoQ  povdCovraQ1) ,  that  uses  tacitly  but  extensively  the 
Didache  (§  6),  is  open  to  doubt,  likewise  that  of  the  De  virginitate 
sive  de  ascesi  (nepi  Trapdeviac,  ijrot  ntpi  aarqazcoc,* ) •  On  the  other 
hand,  there  is  no  reason  to  suspect  the  authenticity  of  several  letters 
written  to  monks,  among  them  one  to  the  abbot  Dracontius9,  two  to 
the  abbot  Orsisius  or  Orsiesius10,  one  to  the  monk  Amunis11,  and  one 
to  the  monks  of  Egypt 12. 

7.  FESTAL  LETTERS.  —  Mention  has  already  been  made  (§  40,  4) 
of  the  so-called  festal  letters  of  the  bishops  of  Alexandria.  The 
original  text  of  those  composed  by  Athanasius  has  been  lost,  apart 
from  some  fragments13.  In  1847  a  collection  of  these  letters  in 
Syriac  was  found  in  a  monastery  of  the  Nitrian  desert;  they  were 
edited  by  Cureton  in  184814.  The  manuscript  of  Cureton  was  a 
mutilated  one,  and  contained  only  fifteen  entire  Letters,  of  the  years 
329 — 348  (in  336  337  340  343  344  Athanasius  issued  no  Festal 
Letters).  These  Letters  have  rendered  valuable  service  to  the  modern 
historians  of  Arianism.  Some  fragments  of  the  Saint's  Festal  Letters 
have  lately  been  discovered  in  a  Coptic  version. 

8.  TEACHING  OF  ATHANASIUS  CONCERNING  CHRIST  AND  THE 
TRINITY.  —  The  Christology  of  Athanasius  is  all  in  the  phrase: 
«God  became  man  in  order  to  deify  men»,  i.  e.  in  order  to  raise 
men    to    the    rank    of  adoptive    sons    of  God  (oux  dpa  avtipcoTTOQ  cou 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xxvii.   1347— 1350;   cf.    1349 — 1362.  2  Ib.,  xxvii.   1363 — 1390. 

3  Ib.,  xxvii.    1 39 1  — 1404;  with  new  fragments  published  by  Mai,  in   1844. 

4  Ib.,  xxvii.    1403— 1404.  5  Ib.,  xxviii.   283—438. 

6  Ib.,  xxvi.  835 — 976.  7  Ib.,  xxviii.  835 — 846.  8  Ib.,  xxviii.  251 — 282. 

9  Ib.,  xxv.   523—534.  10  Ib.,  xxvi.   977—980.  n  Ib.,  xxvi.   1169— 1176. 

12  Ib.,  xxvi.,    1 185— 1 188.  13  Ib.,  xxvi.    1431  — 1444. 

u  Migne,  PL.,  xxvi.    1351  — 1444,  in  a  Latin  version. 


§    63.      ST.    ATHANASIUS.  259 

ooTspov  yiyous  Ssoq'  dlhd  8eoQ  cov  oazepov  yiyovev  dvdpcoTioq,  ha  pdlXov 
tjpäc,  deonoL'/](jf])  1.  Inasmuch  as  we  have  a  part  in  the  Son,  we  have 
also,  according  the  words  of  Holy  Scripture,  a  part  in  God  (aoTob  yap 
too  owb  psTeyovTSQ  too  fteob  peTsyetv  Xeybpefta2,  tootoo  yap  pera- 
XapßdyovTSQ  too  zaTpbg  psTiyopsu,  Sid  to  too  naTpbg  zlvai  iStou  tov 
Xoyou5.  Unless  Christ  were  true  God,  He  could  not  fulfil  his  office  as 
Redeemer.  «If  He  were  the  divinity  and  the  image  of  the  Father  only 
by  participation  fix  psToooiaQ),  and  not  essentially  and  by  Himself, 
fig  aoTooJ,  He  would  not  have  been  able  to  deify  others,  since  Himself 
must  first  have  been  made  like  unto  God.  For  it  is  not  possible 
that  anyone  should  share  with  another  that  which  himself  has  only 
through  participation,  since  that  which  he  has  is  not  his  own  pro- 
perty but  the  property  of  him  who  gave  it,  and  what  he  has  received 
suffices  only  to  satisfy  his  own  need  of  grace.»  4  «If  the  Son  were  a 
creature,  man  would  none  the  less  remain  mortal,  because  not  united 
with  God.  For  a  creature  cannot  unite  creatures  with  God,  since  himself 
must  be  united  with  God  through  another  creature,  and  no  member 
of  creation  can  redeem  creation,  because  itself  is  in  need  of  redemption.»  5 
It  is  quite  impossible  that  there  should  be  a  middle  something 
between  the  Creator  and  the  creature.  The  thesis  of  Arius  that  in 
order  to  create  the  world  God  needed  a  middle  being  is  very  easily 
shown  to  be  false.  God  is  neither  so  impotent  that  He  could  not 
have  created  all  things  Himself,  nor  so  arrogant  that  He  would  have 
disdained  to  create  them 6.  Christ  is  therefore  true  God.  God  is  cer- 
tainly a  unity  (povdq),  but  in  this  unity  is  included  a  trinity  (Tptdg). 
There  is  one  divinity  in  this  trinity  (pia  ttsoTTjQ  ioziv  iv  Tpiddt7,  Sea  to 
xai  piav  efodt  iv  tyj  dy'ta  Tpiddt  bKioT-qTa)%.  The  very  name  Father  sup- 
poses the  existence  of  a  Son  (jraTspa  yap  odx  du  tiq  sI'ttoi  py  bizapyovTog 
olob®,  0  de  tov  ttsbv  Trazipa  Xiywv  eottbc,  iv  aoTcp  xai  tqv  ocbu  cr/jpaivst)10. 
The  Son  however  is  not  from  nothing,  nor  from  the  will  of  the  Father, 
but  from  the  substance  of  the  Father  (ix  tyjq  odaiaq  too  TraTpog11),  and 
this  origin  of  the  Son  from  the  nature  of  the  Father  is  essentially 
different  from  the  origin  of  creatures  from  the  will  of  the  Father 
(oöoj  oou  too  xTiapaToc,  b  olbg  oTripxaiTat,  tocfootoj  xai  tyjq  ßooXfjoecoQ 
to  xa.Ta  (pboiv  12J.  The  Son  is  co-eternal  with  the  Father,  and  there 
was  never  a  time  when  the  Son  was  not  febe,  ftsob  too  del  ovtoq 
I'diog  wv  ocbg  diditoQ  bizapyzi n).  The  Son  shares  with  the  Father  the 
entire  plenitude  of  the  divinity  (to  nXvjpajpa  ttjq  too  zaTpbq  ttsoTyTog 
ian  to  elvat  too  ocob  xai  oXoq  ttsög  ioTtv  b  oIoq  14).  Generation  as 
predicated  of  the  Son,  does  not  mean  the  act  of  being  made,  but 
signifies   participation  in   the  entire  substance  of  the  Father  (to  yap 


1  Or. 

c.  Ar., 

i.  39.              2  lb. 

i.    16.              3  De  synodis,  c.   51.              *  lb. 

5  Or. 

c.  Ar., 

ii.  69.              6  lb. 

ii.  24  25.              7  lb,  i.   18. 

8  Ep. 

ad  Iov. 

,  c.  4-              9  Or. 

c.  Ar,  iii.   6.              10  De  deer.  Nie.  syn,  c.  30, 

11  Ib., 

c.    19. 

12  Or.  c.  Ar.: 

,  iii.  62.              13  lb,  i.   14.              u  lb,  iii.  6. 

17* 

2Ö0  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

oÄWQ  pezeysadac  zbv  Ssbu  t&ov  eaz\  Xiyscv  ozc  xac  ysvva  *.  They  are  two, 
Father  and  Son,  but  their  nature  is  one,  and  that  unity  is  indivisible 
and  inseparable  (duo  piv  slaw,  ozc  b  Tzazrjp  Tzarrjp  iazc  xac  ouy  b  auzbc, 
uIoq  laze  xac  b  ucbg  ucoq  kazc  xac  ouy  b  aurbc,  Trazrjp  kazc  pea  dk  7j  <puacg2* 
waze  duo  pku  ecvac  Tiazipa  xac  olou,  povdda.  ok  ^eozrjzoc,  ddcacpszou 
xac  daycazovz).  The  Spirit  of  God  shares  the  same  divinity  and  the 
same  power  (zyjc,  auzrjg  ttsozyzbc,  save  xac  zrjg  auzrjc,  isouacag*).  The 
Source  (ij  Tnjyi))  6  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  Son  who  is  with  the  Father. 
The  Holy  Spirit  is  inseparable  from  the  substance  of  the  Father  and 
the  Son  (to  de  dycov  Tiveupa  ou  xz'capa  odde  £evov,  a?JJ  'edeov  xa\ 
ddcacpsrou  zrjg  ouacag  zou  ucou  xac  zou  7razp6q6J.  He  is  of  one  and  the 
same  substance  with  the  Father  and  the  Son  (zou  Xoyou  kvbg  ovzog 
c'dcov  xa\  zou  fteou  svoq^ovzoq  'edeov  xac  bpoouacbv  laze1).  There  is, 
therefore,    but  one  divinity  and  one  God  in   three   persons  (pea  yap 

7]    &£OZ7]Q    XOC    £CQ    flsOQ    EV    ZpCGCV    U7ZOOzd.GS.OCV)  8. 

9.      COMPLETE     EDITIONS.       TRANSLATIONS.        CRITICAL     STUDIES.     —     The 

first  complete  edition  of  the  original  text  of  the  writings  of  St.  Athanasius 
appeared  at  Heidelberg,  1600 — 1601,  ex  officina  Commeliniana,  2  vols. 
A  second  edition  was  brought  out  by  J.  Piscator,  Paris,  1627,  2  vols.,  and 
reprinted  at  Cologne  in  1686.  The  best  edition  is  that  of  the  Benedic- 
tines of  St.  Maur  (Maurists),  J.  Lopin  and  B.  de  Montfaucon,  Paris,  1698, 
3  vols.  The  reprint  of  this  edition,  at  Padua,  1777,  by  N.  A.  Giusti?iiani, 
bishop  of  that  city,  has  still  a  fourth  volume,  in  which  are  included 
many  hitherto  unprinted  writings  of  Athanasius,  most  of  them  discovered 
by  de  Montfaucon.  The  Giustiniani  edition  is  reprinted  with  additions  in 
Migne,  PG.,  xxv — xxviii,  Paris,  1857.  We  owe  to  J.  C.  Thilo  a  selection 
of  the  dogmatico-polemical  and  historico-polemical  writings  of  St.  Athana- 
sius reprinted  from  the  Benedictine  edition  (Bibl.  Patrum  graec.  dogm. 
edendam  curavit  Thilo,  vol.  i),  Leipzig,  1853.  Cf.  F.  Wallis,  On  some 
Mss.  of  the  writings  of  St.  Athanasius,  in  Journal  of  Theological  Studies 
(1901 — 1902),  iii.  94 — T09  245 — 258.  Lake ,  Some  further  notes  on  the 
Mss.  of  the  writings  of  St.  Athanasius,  in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1903 
to  I904),  v.  108— 114.  German  translations  of  selected  works  were  made 
by  y.  Fisch  and  P.  A.  Richard,  Kempten,  1872 — 1875,  2  v°ls-  (Bibl.  der 
Kirchenväter).  There  is  an  English  version  of  the  most  important  works 
of  St.  Athanasius  by  A.  Robertson  (J.  H.  Newman)  t  in  Select  Library  of 
Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers  of  the  Christian  Church,  New  York,  1892, 
series  II,  iv.  Select  treatises  of  St.  Athanasius  in  controversy  with  the 
Arians  (Cardinal  Newman),  2  vols.  E.  Fialon,  St.  Athanase,  etude  litte'raire, 
Paris,  1877.  K.  Hoss,  Studien  über  das  Schrifttum  und  die  Theologie  des 
Athanasius  auf  Grund  einer  Echtheitsuntersuchung  von  Athanasius  contra 
gentes  und  De  incarnatione ,  Freiburg,  1899.  A.  Stülcken,  Athanasiana. 
Literar-  und  dogmengeschichtliche  Untersuchungen,  Leipzig,  1899,  in 
Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  xix,  new  series,  iv.  4.  X.  Le  Bachelet,  S.  J., 
Dictionnaire  de  la  Theologie  Catholique,  Paris,  1903,  i.  2144— 2178: 
St.  Athanase. 

1  Or.  c.  Ar.,  i.    16.  2  Ib.,   iii.  4.  3  Ib.,  iv.    1. 

4  De  incarn.  et  c.  Ar.,  c.   9.  5  Ib.  6  Tom.  ad  Ant.;  c.   5. 

7  Ep.  ad  Serap.,  i.   27.  8  De  incarn.  et  c.  Ar.,   c.    10. 


§    6$.      ST.    ATHANASIUS.  2ÖI 

10.  SEPARATE    EDITIONS    AND    VERSIONS.       SPECIAL   RESEARCHES.    —    APO- 

logetical  works.  A  separate  edition  of  the  Oratio  de  incarnatione  Verbi  was 
published  by  A.  Robertson,  London,  1882  1893.  The  authenticity  of  the 
two  apologetic  treatises  was  first  called  in  question  by  V.  Schnitze,  Geschichte 
des  Untergangs  des  griechisch-römischen  Heidentums,  Jena,  1887,  i.  118, 
afterwards  decidedly  denied  by  J.  Dräseke,  in  Theol.  Studien  und  Kritiken 
(1893),  lxvi.  251 — 315.  The  Athanasian  authorship  was  sustained  by  Hoss, 
1.  c.  (see  above  no.  9),  pp.  1 — 95,  and  Stiilcken,  1.  c.  (above  no.  9),  pp.  1—23. 
For  the  Oratio  contra  gentes  see  the  work  of  A.  Lebentopulos ,  quoted  in 
§  17,  3.  —  DOGMATico-POLEMiCAL  works.  Dräseke ,  in  Zeitschr.  für 
wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1893),  xxxvi.  1,  290—315,  Hoss,  1.  c,  pp.  123 — 127, 
and  Stiilcken,  1.  c,  pp.  50 — 58,  call  the  fourth  and  last  of  the  Orationes  IV 
contra  Arianos  spurious.  The  Liber  de  Trinitate  et  Spiritu  Sancto  is  also 
found  as  the  last  of  twelve  books  de  Trinitate  among  the  writings  of  Vigilius, 
bishop  of  Tapsus  (Migne,  PL.,  lxii.  237 — 334).  T.  IL.  Bentley  brought  out 
an  edition  of  the  De  incarnatione  Dei  Verbi  et  contra  Arianos ,  London, 
1887,  2.  ed.,  ib.,  1902.  The  authenticity  of  the  Expositio  fidei  and  of 
the  Sermo  maior  de  fide  has  been  denied  by  Hoss,  1.  c,  pp.  104 — 123,  and 
by  Stiilcken,  1.  c,  pp.  23 — 40.  The  Interpretatio  in  symbolum  (epjMjveta  etc 
to  arujxßoXov)  is  commented  on  with  great  learning  by  C.  P.  Caspari,  in  his 
Ungedruckte  Quellen  zur  Gesch.  des  Taufsymbols  und  der  Glaubensregel, 
Christiania,  1866,  i.  1 — 72,  where  there  is  also  (i.  143 — 160)  a  critical 
edition  of  the  Greek  text  (with  an  ancient  Syriac  version)  of  the  profession 
of  faith  known  as  De  incarnatione  Dei  Verbi  (itepl  xrf  txtpxtoaeoK  tqu  Osou 
X670U);  for  its  origin  see  Caspari,  Alte  und  neue  Quellen  etc.,  Christiania, 
1879,  PP-  io2  ^  The  Maurists  edited  the  Symbolum  Athanasianum,  in  the 
Latin  original,  four  Greek  versions  and  two  Old-French  versions  (Migne, 
PG.,  xxviii.  1581 — 1596).  Two  other  Greek  versions  are  found  in  Cas- 
pari, Ungedruckte  Quellen,  iii.  263 — 267.  For  a  series  of  commentaries 
on  the  Athanasianum  see  A.  E.  Burn,  The  Athanasian  Creed  and  its 
early  Commentaries,  Cambridge,  1896,  in  Texts  and  Studies,  iv.  1.  Id.,  An 
Introduction  to  the  Creeds  and  to  the  Te  Deum,  London,  1899.  G.  D.  W. 
Ommaney ,  A  critical  dissertation  on  the  Athanasian  Creed,  its  original 
language,  date,  authorship,  titles,,  text,  reception  and  use,  Oxford,  1897. 
G.  Morin,  Le  Symbole  d'Athanase  et  son  premier  temoin  Cesaire  d' Aries,  in 
Revue  Benedictine  (1901),  xviii.  338 — 363.  A.  E.  Burn,  On  Eusebius  of 
Vercelli,  in  Journal  of  Theological  Studies  (1900),  i.  592 — 599.  F.  N.  Oxenham, 
The  Athanasian  Creed,  London,  1902.  K.  Künstle,  Antipriscilliana,  Frei- 
burg, 1905.  On  the  «Two  Books  against  Apollinaris»  see  J.  Dräseke, 
Gesammelte  Patristische  Untersuch.,  Altona,  1889,  pp.  169 — 207,  also 
Stiilcken,  1.  c.  (see  above,  no.  9),  pp.  70—75.  The  spurious  Doctrina  ad 
Antiochum  ducem  (Migne,  PG.,  xxviii.  555 — 590),  noteworthy  for  its  reference 
to  the  «Shepherd»  of  Hermas,  was  edited  anew  by  W.  Dindorf,  Athanasii 
Alexandrini  praecepta  ad  Antiochum.  Ad  codices  duos  recensuit  G.  D., 
Leipzig,  1857.  In  this  work  (pp.  vi — xii  and  63 — 77)  Dindorf  reprinted 
from  a  Cod.  Guelpherbytanus  (saec.  x.)  a  copious  varietas  lectionis  relative  to 
the  spurious  Quaes tiones  ad  Antiochum  ducem  (Migne,  PG.,  xxviii.  597 — 708), 
a  compilation  from  ancient  works,  among  them  some  of  Athanasius,  made 
by  various  utterly  unknown  hands.  For  the  seven  Dialogues  on  the  Trinity 
(Migne,  PG. ,  xxviii.  n  15 — 1338:  Dialogi  v  de  Trinitate  and  Dialogi  ii 
contra  Macedonianos)  and  the  Confutationes  quarumdam  propositionum  (Ib., 
xxviii.  1337 — 1394)  see  §  78,  8.  F.  Wallis,  On  some  Mss.  of  the  writings 
of  St.  Athanasius,  in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1902),  iii.  245 — 258. 

11.  SEPARATE    EDITIONS    AND  TRANSLATIONS.     SPECIAL  RESEARCHES    (CON- 
TINUED). —  Historico- Polemical  writings.     For  a  refutation  of  some  doubts 


2Ö2  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

concerning  the  authenticity  of  the  Historia  Arianorum  ad  monachos  see 
A.  Eichhorn,  Athanasii  de  vita  ascetica  testimonia  collecta,  Halle,  1886, 
pp.  57 — 62.  —  Exegetical  writings.  The  genuineness  of  the  second  Psalm- 
commentary  (Migne,  PG.,  xxvii.  649  —  1344)  was  denied  by  H.  Sträter,  Die 
Erlösungslehre  des  hl.  Athanasius,  Freiburg,  1894,  pp.  29 — 35,  and  by 
M.  Faulhaber,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1901),  lxxxiii.  218 — 232.  The  latter 
attributes  it  to  Hesychius  of  Jerusalem  (§  79,  3),  and  corroborates  the  thesis 
of  G.  Mercati ,  in  Note  di  letteratura  biblica  e  cristiana  antica  (Studi  e 
Testi  v),  Rome,  1901 ,  pp.  144 — 179:  «II  commentario  di  Esichio  Gero- 
solimitano  sui  salmi».  Cardinal  Mai  published  (Nova  Patrum  Bibl.,  Rome, 
1844,  ii,  part  2)  under  the  name  of  Athanasius  In  lucae  cvangelium  com- 
me?ztariorum  excerpta  (pp.  567  —  582),  and  fragmenta  alia  (pp.  583 — 584); 
the  latter  are  reprinted  in  Migne,  PG.,  xxvi.  1291 — 1294,  though  I  have 
sought  there  in  vain  for  the  excerpta.  Pitra ,  Analecta  sacra  et  classica 
(1888),  part  1 ,  made  known  under  the  name  of  Athanasius  some  frag- 
ments ex  commentario  in  Psalmos  (pp.  3 — 20)  and  ex  comme?itario  in  Job 
(pp.  21  —  26).  On  the  Synopsis  Scripturae  Sacrae  see  Charteris ,  Canoni- 
city,  Edinburgh,  1880;  Th.  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons, 
Erlangen,  1890,  ii.  1,  302 — 318;  cf.  E.  Klostermann,  Analecta  zur  Septua- 
ginta,  Hexapla  und  Patristik,  Leipzig,  1895,  pp.  75  if.  —  Ascetic  writ- 
ings. A  handy  edition  of  the  Vita  S.  Antonii  was  brought  out  by  A.  F. 
Maunoury ,  Paris,  1887  and  1890.  The  authenticity  and  credibility  of 
this  work  were  attacked  by  H.  Weingarten,  Der  Ursprung  des  Mönch- 
tums  im  nachconstantinischen  Zeitalter,  Gotha,  1877.  Weingarten  was 
refuted  by  A.  Eichhorn,  Athanasii  de  vita  ascetica  testimonia  collecta 
(Inaug.-Diss.) ,  Halle,  1886,  and  by  J.  Mayer,  in  Der  Katholik  (1886),  i. 
495 — 516  619 — 636;  ii.  72 — 86  173 — 193.  Dom  Cuthbert  Butler,  The 
Lausiac  History  of  Palladius,  i,  in  Texts  and  Studies,  Cambridge,  1898, 
vi.  i,  215 — 228.  The  Latin  version  of  Evagrius  may  also  be  found  in 
the  Bollandists,  in  the  Acta  SS.  Jan.,  Antwerp,  1643,  "•  I2° — I4I-  In  his 
Acta  martyrum  et  sanctorum,  Paris,  1895,  v.  1  — 121,  Bedjan  made  known 
an  ancient  Syriac  version  of  the  work ;  cf.  Er.  Schulthess,  Probe  einer  sy- 
rischen Version  der  Vita  S.  Antonii  (Inaug.-Diss.),  Leipzig,  1894.  P.  Batiffol 
edited  anew  (and  pronounced  spurious)  the  Syntagma  doctrinae  ad  mon- 
achos, in  Studia  patristica,  Paris,  1890,  ii.  117 — 160.  Id. ,  On  the  De 
virginitate  seu  de  ascesi,  in  Römische  Quartalschr.  für  christl.  Altertums- 
kunde u.  f.  Kirchengesch.  (1893),  vii.  275 286.  —  The   Festal  Letters. 

The  Festal  Letters  of  Athanasius,  discovered  in  an  ancient  Syriac  version, 
and  edited  by  W.  Cureton ,  London,  1848.  The  Syriac  text  is  reprinted, 
with  a  Latin  version,  in  Mai,  Nova  Patrum  Bibl.,  Rome,  1853,  vi,  part  1 
{Migne,  PG. ,  xxvi.  135 1  — 1444).  A  German  translation  of  the  Festal 
Letters  was  made  by  F.  Larsow ,  Die  Festbriefe  des  hl.  Athanasius,  Bi- 
schofs von  Alexandria,  Leipzig,  1852.  Th.  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl. 
Kanons,  Erlangen,  1890,  ii.  1,  203 — 212:  Der  Osterfest-Brief  des  Atha- 
nasius vom  Jahre  367  {Migne,  PG.,  xxvi.  1435 — 144°)-  Id.  (apropos  of  this 
Festal  Letter),  Athanasius  und  der  Bibelkanon,  Leipzig,  1901.  Concerning 
some  Coptic  fragments  of  the  same  letter  and  its  biblical  canon  cf.  C.  Schmidt, 
in  Nachrichten  von  der  k.  Gesellsch.  der  Wissensch.  zu  Göttingen,  Phil. -hist. 
Kl.  (1898),  pp.  167 — 203;  Id. ,  Ein  neues  Fragment  des  Osterfest-Briefes 
des  Athanasius  vom  Jahre  367,  ib.,  1901.  For  Coptic  fragments  of  other 
Festal  Letters  see  H.  Achelis,  in  Theol.  Literaturzeitung  (1899),  pp.  663  f. 
W.  Fiedel  and  W.  E.  Crum ,  The  Canons  of  Athanasius  of  Alexandria. 
The  Arabic  and  Coptic  Versions  edited  and  translated  (Text  and  Translation 
Society),  London,  1904.  —  Other  spurious  works.  The  Fides  Nicaena  [Migne, 
PG. ,    xxviii.   1637 — 1644)   was  edited   again   by  P.  Batiffol,   in  Didascalia 


§    63.      ST.    ATHANASIUS.  263 

cccxviii  Patrum  pseudepigrapha,  e  graecis  codicibus  recensuit  P.  Batiffol, 
Coptico  contulit  H.  Hyvernat,  Paris,  1887.  E-  Revillout  had  already  made 
known  two  Coptic  texts  of  this  small  work.  For  more  explicit  details  see 
A.  Eichhorn,  in  Theol.  Literaturzeitung  (1887),  pp.  569 — 571.  The  Tractatus 
S.  Athanasii  de  ratione  paschae  {Migne,  PG.,  xxviii.  1605  — 1610),  extant  in 
Latin  only,  is  a  recasting  of  the  De  pascha  by  Martin  of  Bracara  (§  119,  1). 
Cf.  F.  Piper,  Über  den  Verfasser  der  dem  Athanasius  beigelegten  Schrift 
«De  paschate»,  Berlin,  1862.  For  the  Historia  imaginis  Berytensis  (Ib.,  xxviii. 
797 — 824)  in  two  Greek  and  two  Latin  recensions,  see  Wildl,  in  Kirchen- 
lexikon (1882),  2.  ed.,  i.  1543 — 1547;  v.  Dobschütz,  Christusbilder,  Leipzig, 
1899,  pp.  280  ff.  H.  E.  Taiezi  published  at  Venice  (1899)  an  ancient 
Armenian  translation  of  Athanasiana,  treatises,  sermons,  letters  and  spurious 
matter ;  also  some  fragments  unknown  in  the  Greek,  among  them  a  discourse 
that  is  also  extant  in  Coptic  (F.  Rossi,  I  papiri  copti  del  Museo  Egiziano 
de  Tarmo,  Tarmo,  1888,  ii.  1).  There  is  in  Taiezi  a  fragment  of  the  letter 
of  Athanasius  to  his  disciple  and  successor  Timotheos;  cf.  §  63,  3 
and  79,  4. 

12.  works  on  athanasius.  —  To  the  ancient  authorities  for  the  life 
of  the  Saint  we  may  now  add  some  fragments  of  a  Coptic  eulogium  edited 
by  O.  v.  Lemm,  Koptische  Fragmente  zur  Patriarchengeschichte  Alexan- 
driens,  Petersburg,  1888.  Cf.  J.  A.  Möhler,  Athanasius  der  Grosse  und  die 
Kirche  seiner  Zeit,  besonders  im  Kampfe  mit  dem  Arianismus,  Mainz,  1827, 
2.  vols.,  2.  ed.  1844.  Fr.  Böhringer,  Die  griechischen  Väter  des  3.  und 
4.  Jahrhunderts.  2.  Hälfte:  Athanasius  und  Arius  (Die  Kirche  Christi  und  ihre 
Zeugen  oder  die  Kirchengeschichte  in  Biographien,  vol.  i.,  sect.  2.,  half  2., 
ed.  2.),  Stuttgart,  1874.  G.  Krüger,  Die  Bedeutung  des  Athanasius,  in  Jahrb. 
f.  protest.  Theol.  (1890),  xvi.  337 — 356.  Contributions  to  the  chronology 
of  the  life  of  Athanasius  were  made  by  A.  v.  Gutschmid,  Kleine  Schriften, 
herausgegeben  von  Fr.  Fühl,  Leipzig,  1890,  ii.  427—449.  H.  Voigt,  Die 
Lehre  des  Athanasius  von  Alexandrien  oder  die  kirchliche  Dogmatik  des 
4.  Jahrhunderts  auf  Grund  der  biblischen  Lehre  vom  Logos,  Bremen,  1861. 
Ch.  Vernet,  Essai  sur  la  doctrine  christologique  d'Athanase-le-Grand  (These), 
Geneve,  1879.  &•  Atzberger,  Die  Logoslehre  des  hl.  Athanasius,  München, 
1880.  G.  Voisin,  La  doctrine  christologique  de  Saint  Athanase,  in  Revue 
d'histoire  ecclesiastique  (1900),  i.  226 — 248.  G.  A.  Pell,  Die  Lehre  des 
hl.  Athanasius  von  der  Sünde  und  Erlösung,  Passau,  1888.  H.  Sträter,  Die 
Erlösungslehre  des  hl.  Athanasius,  Freiburg,  1894.  K.  Bornhauser ,  Die 
Vergötterungslehre  des  Athanasius  und  Johannes  Damascenus,  Gütersloh, 
1903.  F.  Laudiert,  Die  Lehre  des  hl.  Athanasius  d.  Gr.,  Leipzig,  1895. 
H.  Lietzmann,  Chronologie  der  ersten  und  zweiten  Verbannung  des  Atha- 
nasius, in  Zeitschr.  f.  wissensch.  Theol.  (1901),  xliv.  380 — 390.  Gwatkin, 
Studies  on  Arianism,  Cambridge,  1900. 

13.  Alexander  of  Alexandria.  —  Two  letters  about  the  heresy  of 
Arius  from  the  pen  of  this  bishop  of  Alexandria  (see  no.  1)  are  extant, 
both  written  before  the  Council  of  Nicaea,  one  to  Alexander,  bishop  of 
Constantinople,  and  the  other  to  all  the  bishops  [Migne,  PG.,  xviii.  547 
to  582).  It  is  clear  from  these  letters  that  Alexander  grasped  at  once  the 
true  significance  of  the  teaching  of  Arius.  He  does  not  use  the  term 
ojaooujios,  but  he  does  call  the  Blessed  Virgin  yj  {kot&coc  (Ep.  i.,  c.  12). 
Some  Greek  fragments  current  under  his  name  are  collected  in  Migne, 
PG.,  xviii.  581 — 584,  also  a  Syriac  Sermo  de  anima  et  corpore  deque  pas- 
sione  Domini  (ib.,  585—608,  Syriac  and  Latin)  and  several  short  Syriac 
fragments  edited  by  Martin,  in  Pitra,  Analecta  sacra,  iv.  196 — 200  430  to 
434  (Syriac  and  Latin).  For  the  Syriac  sermon  and  the  Syriac  fragments 
cf.   G.  Krüger,  in  Zeitschr.   für  wissensch.  Theol.  (1888),    xxxi.  434—448; 


264  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

C.   Thomas,   Melito  von  Sardes,  Osnabrück,  1893,    pp.  40 — 51.     See  also 

§  19,  3- 

14.  popes  julius  i.  and  LiBERius.  — Julius  I.  (337 — 352)  was  the  sole 
support  in  troublous  times  of  the  bishops  persecuted  for  their  opposition 
to  Arianism  (see  no.  i).  We  possess  two  Greek  letters  from  his  hand:  Ad 
Antiochenos  and  Ad  Alexandrinos  (Migne,  PL.,  viii.  897 — 912).  Other  writ- 
ings current  under  his  name  are  Apollinarist  forgeries  (§  61,  4),  among 
them  the  four  letters  in  Greek,  Apollinarist  or  Monophysite  in  tendency,  in 
Migne,  PG.,  viii.  873 — 877  929—936  953  —  961;  also  in  P.  A.  de  Lagarde, 
Titi  Bostreni  quae  ex  opere  contra  Manichaeos  edito  in  cod.  Hamburg, 
servata  sunt  graece,  Berlin,  1859,  pp.  114 — 124.  A  Syriac  version  of 
these  letters  is  in  de  Lagarde ,  Analecta  syriaca,  Leipzig  and  London, 
1858,  pp.  67 — 79,  and  in  J.  Fr.  A.  Veith,  Epistolae  nonnullae  sub  Iulii  I 
nomine  divulgatae  (Diss,  inaug.),  Breslau,  1862.  The  seven  Syriac  frag- 
ments attributed  to  Julius  I.  are  also  in  G.  Mosinger,  Monumenta  Syriaca, 
Innsbruck,  1878,  ii.  1 — 5.  —  There  are  extant  under  the  name  of  Pope 
Liberius  (352 — 366)  several  letters  in  Latin  and  a  letter  in  Greek  Ad  uni- 
versos  orientis  orthodoxos  episcopos  (Migne,  PL.,  viii.  1349 — 1358  1372 
to  1373  1381 — 1386);  oS..Jaff6,  Regesta  Pontificum  Rom.,  2.  ed.,  Leipzig, 
1885,  i.  n.  208 — 216  223  228.  Saint  Ambrose  (De  virginibus,  iii.  1 — 3) 
has  handed  down  the  discourse  pronounced  by  Liberius  on  the  occasion 
of  the  religious  consecration  of  Marcellina,  the  sister  of  Ambrose.  Theo- 
doret  (Hist,  eccl.,  ii.  13)  has  saved  for  us  the  declarations  in  which  Li- 
berius resisted  at  Milan  (355)  the  demands  of  the  emperor  Constantius.  It 
is  probable  that  Liberius  subscribed  the  third  Sirmian  formula  and  thereby 
sacrificed,  not  orthodoxy,  but  the  term  ojagousio?  ;  cf.  H.  Grisar,  in  Kirchen- 
lexikon, 2.  ed.,  1891,  vii.  1951 — 1959-  The  four  Latin  letters  that  are 
quoted  as  proof  of  the  pope's  lapse  into  Arianism  are  now  recognized  as 
forgeries  (Migne,  PL.,  viii.  1365 — 1372  1395);  cf.  also  Jafft,  1.  c,  n.  217 
to  219  and  207;  the  same  is  true  of  the  Greek  letter  to  Athanasius  and 
the  reply  of  the  latter  (Migne,  PL.,  viii.  1395 — 1440,  and  PG.,  xxviii.  1441 
to  1446-,  Jaffi,  n.  229),  likewise  of  other  writings  ascribed  at  different 
times  to  Liberius  (Jaffe,  n.  222  224 — 247).  L.  de  Feis,  Storia  di  Liberio 
papa  e  dello  scisma  dei  Semiariani,  Rome,  1894. 

§  64.    The  representatives  of  Egyptian  Monachism. 

I.  SAINT  ANTHONY.  —  Saint  Anthony  the  Great,  who  found  his 
first  biographer  in  St.  Athanasius  (§  63,  6),  passes  for  the  founder 
of  the  cenobitic  life.  He  died  in  356,  at  the  age  of  one  hundred 
and  five,  on  Mount  Colzim  near  the  Red  Sea.  St.  Athanasius  in- 
serted in  his  «Vita  Antonii»  (cc.  16 — 43)  a  long  discourse  of  the 
Saint  to  his  monks,  translated  from  «Egyptian»  (Coptic).  St.  Jerome1 
was  acquainted  with  seven  letters  apo stolid  sensus  sermonisque  ad- 
dressed by  Anthony  to  several  monasteries,  and  translated  from 
Egyptian  into  Greek;  the  most  important  (praecipua  est)  was  a  letter 
ad  Arsenoitas.  There  are  grave  difficulties  against  the  identification 
of  these  letters  with  the  epistolae  Septem  S.  Antonii  still  current  in 
Latin.  Discourses  and  thoughts  of  this  «father  of  the  monks»  were 
set  down  in  writing  by  some  of  his  disciples.  Some  ascetical  works 
have  been  falsely  attributed  to  him. 

1  De  viris  ill.,  c.  88. 


§    64.      THE    REPRESENTATIVES    OF    EGYPTIAN   MONACHISM.  265 

There  are  some  Coptic  fragments  of  letters,  under  the  name  of  An- 
thony, Ad  S.  Theodorum  and  Ad  S.  Athanasium,  in  jf.  A.  Mingarelli, 
Aegyptiorum  codicum  reliquiae  Venetiis  in  bibliotheca  Naniana  asservatae, 
Bologna,  1785,  pp.  cxcviii — cciii.  A  short  letter  to  Theodoras,  translated  from 
the  Egyptian,  in  Epistola  Ammonis  episc.  ad  Theophilum  papam  Alexandriae, 
is  found  in  the  Bollandists,  in  the  Acta  SS.  Mai,  iii.  70  (p.  355,  in  Latin), 
and  is  reprinted  in  Migne,  PG.,  xl.  1065.  Migne  (1.  c,  961  — 1100)  contains 
also  the  following  Latin  writings  attributed  to  Saint  Anthony:  Sermo  de 
vanitate  mundi  et  de  resurrectione  mortuorum,  Sermones  XX  ad  filios  suos 
monachos,  Epistolae  VII  ex  Graeco  Latine  redditae  interprete  Valerio  de 
Sarasio,  Epistolae  XX  ex  Arabico  Latini  iuris  factae  ab  Abrahamo  Ecchellensi 
Maronita  e  Libano,  Regulae  ac  praecepta  ad  filios  suos  monachos,  Spiri- 
tualia  documenta,  Admonitiones  et  documenta  varia,  Sententiarum  quarum- 
dam  S.  Antonii  expositio  facta  a  quodam  sene,  Interrogationes  quaedam  a 
diversis  S.  Antonio  factae  eiusque  ad  easdem  responsiones,  Dicta  quaedam 
S.  Antonii.  The  seven  letters  have  been  also  published  (Latin  text)  by 
A.  Erdinger,  Innsbruck,  187 1.  A.  Verger,  Vie  de  St.  Antoine-le-Grand, 
patriarche  des  cenobites,  Tours,  1890.  B.  Contzen,  Die  Regel  des 
hl.  Antonius  (Progr.),  Metten,  1896.  J.  Besse,  Diet,  de  la  Theologie  Catho- 
lique,  Paris,   1903,  i.   1441  — 1443'  St.  Antoine. 

2.  ST.  PACHOMIUS.  —  If  Anthony  was  the  father  of  the  monks, 
his  disciple  Pachomius  was  their  first  legislator.  The  scene  of  his  life 
and  labors  was  Tabennesus,  north  of  Thebes,  on  the  right  bank  of 
the  Nile,  where  the  monastic  colony  grew  until  it  counted  thousands 
of  members.  He  died  in  345  according  to  Grützmacher,  in  346 
(May  9.)  according  to  Ladeuze.  His  rule  was  probably  the  out- 
growth of  time  and  was  written  originally  in  Coptic.  Ladeuze  thinks 
that  the  short  Greek  text  in  Palladius1  is  by  no  means  the  oldest 
form  of  the  rule;  the  Latin  text  in  Saint  Jerome2  is  a  translation 
from  the  Greek  and  represents  the  condition  of  the  rule  about  the 
year  400.     There  are  added   to   this  version  some  exhortations  and 

several  letters  of  Pachomius3. 

« 

The  historical  authorities  for  the  life  and  labors  of  Pachomius  are :  a 
Greek  biography  of  the  Saint  and  of  his  disciple  Theodoras,  some  Coptic 
and  Arabic  documents  published  by  E.  A?nilineau  in  1889  and  1895,  a 
Syriac  History  of  Pachomius  edited  by  P.  Bedjan  in  1895,  and  other  docu- 
ments; cf.  G.  Grützmacher,  Pachomius  und  das  älteste  Klosterleben,  Frei- 
burg, 1895;  P.  Ladeuze,  Etude  sur  la  cenobitisme  Pakhomien  pendant  le 
IV6  siecle  et  la  premiere  moitie  du  Ve,  Paris,  1898.  The  oldest  Life  of 
Pachomius  was  written  in  Greek,  soon  after  386  according  to  Ladeuze,  and 
in  the  form  in  which  it  appears  in  the  Bollandists,  in  the  Acta  SS.  Mai., 
iii.  25  fT.  There  is  a  Greek  recension  of  Pachomius's  rule  in  Palladius 
(1.  c),  also  in  Sozomenus,  Hist.  eccl. ,  iii.  14.  A  longer  Greek  recension 
(50  rules)  is  found  in  Acta  SS.  Mai.,  iii.  62 — 63  (Latin  pp.  346—347),  and 
in  Migne,  PG.,  xl.  947—952.  A  still  longer  Greek  recension  (60  rules)  was 
published  by  Pitra ,  Analecta  sacra  et  classica  (1888),  i.  113 — 115.  The 
Latin  text  in  St.  Jerome  (1.  c.)  includes  as  many  as  194  rules.  For  Ethiopic 
Regulae  Pachomii  cf.  A.  Dillmann,  Chrestomathia  Aethiopica,  Leipzig,  1866, 

1  Historia  Lausiaca,  c.   38.  2  Migne,  PL.,  xxiii.  61 — 86. 

3  Ib.,  xxiii.  85 — 99. 


266  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

pp.  57 — 69;  this  text  has  been  translated  into  German  by  E.  König,  in 
Theol.  Studien  und  Kritiken  (1878),  li.  323 — 337.  Some  Coptic  sermons 
attributed  to  Pachomius  were  published  by  E.  Amdlineau,  with  a  French 
version,  in  the  Memoires  publies  par  les  membres  de  la  mission  archeo- 
logique  francaise  au  Caire  (1895),  iv.  2,  483  ff.  E.  Preuschen,  Mönchtum 
und  Serapiskult,  Giessen,  1903.  On  St.  Pachomius  and  his  monks  see 
M.  Heimbucher,  Die  Orden  und  Kongregationen  der  katholischen  Kirche, 
Paderborn,  1896,  i.  36  ff. 

3.  ST.  ORSISIUS  (ORSIESIUS)  AND  ST.  THEODORUS.  —  Petronius, 
the  successor  of  Pachomius  in  the  government  of  his  monastic  com- 
munity, survived  him  but  a  few  days.  His  place  was  filled  by 
Orsisius  or  Orsiesius  (§  63,  6),  who  chose  as  his  assistant  the  monk 
Theodorus.  The  latter  died  in  368 ;  the  death  of  Orsisius  took  place 
about  380.  Jerome1  has  added  to  the  letters  of  Pachomius  (§  64,  2) 
a  brief  letter  of  Theodorus  Ad  omnia  monasteria  de  pascha.  Gen- 
nadius2  knew  several  letters  of  Theodorus.  Orsisius  wrote  a  Doc- 
tri?ia  de  institutione  monachorum2,  that  won  warm  praise  from  Gen- 
nadius4;  it  was  probably  written  in  Coptic,  but  is  known  to  us 
only  in  a  Latin  version  which  is  very  probably  the  work  of  Saint 
Jerome.  A  Libellus  de  sex  cogitationibus  sanctorum*  in  Latin  goes 
under  the  name  of  Orsisius. 

On  Orsisius  and  Theodorus  the  reader  may  consult  the  works  of  Grütz- 
macher and  Ladeuze  quoted  above  (no.  2).  With  the  Coptic  Sermons 
of  Pachomius,  Amelineau  published  (1.  c.)  Coptic  Sermons  of  Theodorus 
and  Coptic  Letters  of  Orsisius,  with  a  French  version. 

4.  SS.  MACARIUS  THE  EGYPTIAN  AND  MACARIUS  THE  ALEXANDRINE. 
—  Rufinus  6  and  Palladius  7  dwell  with  special  pleasure  on  the  wonder- 
ful deeds  of  Macarius  the  Egyptian  and  Macarius  the  Alexandrine. 
The   former  was   born  about   the   year  300,    and  when  about  thirty 

#years  of  age,  retired  to  the  solitude  of  Scete,  where  he  dwelt  for 
sixty  years.  At  the  end  of  his  first  decade  in  the  desert  he  was 
ordained  priest,  and  because  of  his  rapid  progress  in  virtue  was 
soon  known  as  «the  aged  youth»,  Tzaidapwyipoiv.  His  sanctity  was 
made  evident  by  remarkable  gifts  of  prophecy  and  by  power  over  the 
demons  and  by  the  healing  of  the  sick.  These  gifts  were  possessed 
in  a  still  higher  degree  by  his  somewhat  younger  contemporary, 
Macarius  of  Alexandria.  He  was  also  a  priest  and  had  charge  of 
a  monastery  (or  the  monasteries?)  in  the  Nitrian  desert,  then  the 
principal  centre  of  Egyptian  monasticism.  He  died  about  395,  and 
was  henceforth  known  as  «the  Alexandrine» 8  or  also  «the  town's 
man»  9  from    the  place  of  his  birth  and    to  distinguish  him  from  his 

1  Migne,  PL.,  xxiii.  99    100.  2  De  viris  ill.,  c.  8. 

3  Migne,  PG.,  xl.   869—894.  4  De  viris  ill.,  c.   9. 

5  Migne,  PG.,  xl.  895—896.  6  Vitae  Patrum,  cc.  28  29. 

7  Hist.  Lausiaca,  c.   19   20.  8  Socr.,  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.  23. 

9  Sozom.,  Hist,  eccl.,  iii.    14. 


§    64.      THE    REPRESENTATIVES    OF    EGYPTIAN    MONACHISM.  267 

illustrious  namesake  who  was  born  in  Upper  Egypt.  It  is  only  in  our 
own  time  that  he  came  to  be  known  as  «Macarius  Junior».  In  So- 
zomen 1  and  Nicephorus  Callistus 2  it  is  another  Egyptian  monk 3  who 
is  called  «the  younger»  (b  usoqJ.  The  ancient  biographers  are  silent 
about  any  writings  of  the  two  Macarii.  Gennadius4  mentions  only  one 
didactic  letter  of  «the  celebrated  Egyptian  monk  Macarius»  to  younger 
monks:  Macarius  monachus  Me  Aegyptius.  .  .  .  unam  tantum  ad 
iuniores  professionis  suae  scripsit  epistolam .  At  a  later  date  we 
meet  with  a  great  number  of  works  attributed  to  one  or  other  of 
these  holy  men.  Fifty  «spiritual»  homilies  i.  e.  dealing  with  the 
spiritual  life,  bear  the  name  of  Macarius  the  Egyptian  (bfidiai  Ttveufia- 
zixai5),  also  an  Epistola  magna  et  perutilis^  first  edited  by  Floss 
(1850).  The  homilies,  the  authenticity  of  which  we  have  no  reason  to 
suspect,  were  much  admired  at  a  later  period ;  their  author  ranks  as 
a  foremost  representative  of  the  earliest  ecclesiastical  mysticism.  The 
following  treatises:  De  custodia  cordis,  De  perfectione .in  spiritu,  De 
oratione,  De  patientia  et  discretione,  De  elevatione  mentis,  De  charitate, 
De  libertate  mentis"' ,  published  by  Possinus  (1683)  as  works  of 
Macarius  the  Egyptian,  are  really  excerpts  from  the  «Spiritual  homilies», 
made  probably  in  the  tenth  century  by  Simeon  Logotheta.  There 
is  also  current  under  the  name  of  Macarius  an  apparently  spurious 
Sermo  de  exitu  animae  iustorum  et  peccatorum,  quomodo  separantitr 
a  corpore  et  in  quo  statu  manent 8.  Several  short  collections  of 
«sentences»  (apophthegmata)^  are  usually  attributed  to  «Macarius  the 
Egyptian  abbot».  A  short  prayer10,  three  Latin  letters11  and  a 
Latin  Regula  ad  monachos12,  are  ascribed  in  the  manuscripts  to  «Saint 
Macarius».  A  Latin  discourse  that  bears  the  name  of  Macarius  the 
Alexandrine  is  probably  spurious. 

In  Migne  (PG.,  xxxiv)  several  «Dissertationes»  are  added  to  the  works 
described  in  the  preceding  paragraph,  among  them  the  «Quaestiones  cri- 
ticae  et  historicae  de  Macariorum  Aegyptii  et  Alexandrini  vitis»,  in  Floss, 
Macarii  Aegyptii  epistolae,  homiliarum  loci,  preces,  primus  edidit  Fl., 
Cologne,  1850,  pp.  1  — 188.  M.  Jocham  published  (Sulzbach,  1839,  2  vols.) 
a  German  translation  of  the  works  of  «St.  Macarius  the  Great».  Another 
translation  was  published  at  Kempten,  1878  (Bibliothek  der  Kirchenväter). 
The  spiritual  doctrine  of  Macarius  is  discussed  by  Th.  Förster,  Makarius 
von  Ägypten,  in  Jahrb.  f.  deutsche  Theol.  (1873),  xviii.  439—501.  The 
two  fragments  which  Floss  published  at  Bonn  (Universitätsprogramm  zum 
3.  Aug.  1866)  under  the  name  of  Macarius  (the  Egyptian)  belong,  as  was 
pointed  out  by  Gildemeister,  to  a  work  printed  among  the  writings  of  Saint 
Ephraem,   in  the  Greek   section   of  the  Roman  edition    of  Ephraem  (1732 

1  Ib.,  vi.  29.              2  Hist,  eccl.,  xi.  35.              3  Pallad.,  Hist.  Laus.,  c.    17. 

4  De  viris  ill.,  c.   10.  5  Migne,  PG.,  xxxiv.  449—822. 

6  Ib.,  xxxiv.   409—442.  7  Ib.,  xxxiv.   821 — 968. 

8  Ib.,  xxxiv.   385 — 392.  ■  Ib.,  xxxiv.   229 — 264. 

10  Ib.,  xxxiv.  445—448.  "  Ib.,  xxxiv.  405—410  441—446. 


a 


lb.  xxxiv.   967 — 970. 


268  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

to  1746),  i.  41 B — 61 F).  J.  Gildemeister,  Über  die  an  der  k.  preuss. 
Universität  Bonn  entdeckten  neuen  Fragmente  des  Makarius,  Leipzig,  1866. 
H.  J.  Floss,  J.  Gildemeister  und  das  Bonner  Universitätsprogramm  zum 
3.  Aug.  1866,  Freiburg,  1867.  J.  Gildemeister,  Über  die  in  Bonn  ent; 
deckten  neuen  Fragmente  des  Makarius,  zweites  Wort,  Elberfeld,  1867. 
R.  Lobe,  Makarius  von  Ägypten,  in  Kirchl.  Jahrb.  für  das  Herzogtum 
Sachsen- Altenburg  (1900),  vi  1,  37 — 78. 

5.  ST.  ISAIAS.  —  An  abbot  Isaias,  who  lived  according  to  the 
common  opinion  in  the  fourth  century  and  in  the  desert  of  Scete,  is 
held  to  be  the  author  of  twenty-nine  Orationes  the  text  of  which  has 
reached  us  only  in  a  Latin  version 1 ;  some  fragments  of  the  Greek 
text  are  in  the  Capitula  de  religios'a  exercitatione  et  quiete 2.  Sixty- 
eight  Praecepta  sen  consilia  posita  tironibus  in  monachatu  3  are  extant 
only  in  Latin.     Some  fragments  are  found  in  Migne4. 

According  to  G.  Krüger  [Ahrens  und  Krüger,  Die  sog.  Kirchen- 
geschichte des  Zacharias  Rhetor,  Leipzig,  1899,  pp.  385  f.),  the  author 
of  the  above-mentioned  works  was  the  ascetic  Isaias  who  died  between  485 
and  490,  and  found  a  biographer  in  the  rhetorician  Zacharias  (§  103,  2). 

§  65.    Anti-Manichaean  writers. 

I.  HEGEMONIUS.  —  Towards  the  end  of  the  third  century  Mani- 
chaeism  began  to  make  its  way  from  Persia  into  the  Greco-Roman 
world  and  to  popularize  its  system  of  two  eternal  principles,  one 
good  the  other  evil,  and  of  the  origin  of  the  works  of  creation  from  a 
commingling  of  light  and  darkness.  The  literary  opposition  of  the 
Christians  began,  apparently,  with  the  author  of  the  Acta  disputationis 
Archelai  episcopi  Mesopotamiae  et  Ma?ietis  haeresiarchae,  a  work 
that  has  reached  us  only  in  an  ancient  Latin  translation  made  from  a 
Greek  text.  This  Greek  text  some  fragments  of  which  are  extant, 
probably  represent  its  primitive  form;  others  maintain  that  it  was 
originally  written  in  Syriac;  at  all  events  it  belongs  to  the  first  half 
of  the  fourth  century.  According  to  the  trustworthy  evidence  of 
Heraclian  of  Chalcedon5  the  author  was  a  certain  Hegemonius. 
The  work  contains  the  narrative  of  a  dispute  between  Archelaus, 
bishop  of  Charchar  (probably  Carrhae-Harran)  in  Mesopotamia,  and 
the  founder  of  Manichaeism,  held  in  presence  of  learned  arbiters  who 
decided  in  favor  of  Archelaus;  a  second  dispute  likewise  ended  in 
a  splendid  victory  for  the  bishop.  These  disputes  are  doubtlessly 
imaginary  events,  a  literary  form  invented  for  the  purpose  of  ex- 
hibiting the  arguments  of  the  author  against  Manichaeism.  There  is 
no  evidence  for  the  historical  reality  of  this  bishop  Archelaus  or  of 
any  of  the  personages  brought  forward,  with  the  sole  exception  of 
Mani.     The  work  is   nevertheless   a   valuable    source   of  information 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xl.    1105  — 1206.  2  Ib.,  xl.    1205  — 1212. 

3  Migne,  PL.,  ciii.  427 — 434.  4  Migne,  PG.,  xl.    12  n  — 12 14. 

5  Phot.,  Bibl.  Cod.  85. 


§    65.      ANTi-MANICKLF.AN    WRITERS.  269 

to  historians  and  dogmatic  theologians;  the  writer  had  before  him 
genuine  Manichaean  writings  parts  of  which  he  quotes,  and  his  de- 
scription of  the  Manichaean  system  is  the  common  source  of  all  later 
Greek  and  Latin  works  on  that  subject. 

A  complete  Latin  text  of  the  Acta  disputationis  was  first  edited  by 
L.  A.  Zacagni ,  Collectanea  monumentorum  veterum  eccles.  gr.  ac  lat., 
Rome,  1698,  pp.  1 — 105;  often  reprinted  since,  as  e.  g.  in  Migne,  PG.,  x. 
1405 — 1528.  H.  v.  Zittwitz,  Acta  disputationis  Archelai  et  Manetis,  unter- 
sucht, in  Zeitschr.  f.  die  hist.  Theol.  (1873),  xliii.  467  —  528.  Ad.  Oblasinski, 
Acta  disputationis  Archelai  et  Manetis  (Diss,  inaug.),  Leipzig,  1874. 
K.  Kessler,  Mani,  Berlin,  1889,  i.  87—171:  «Sprache  und  Komposition 
der  Acta  Archelai».  Th.  Nöldeke,  in  Zeitschr.  der  deutschen  Morgenland. 
Gesellschaft  (1889),  xliii.  537  —  541,  contested  Kessler' s  theory  of  a  Syriac 
original.  C.  Salemann,  Ein  Bruchstück  manichäischen  Schrifttums  im  asia- 
tischen Museum,  in  Memoires  de  l'Acad.  imp.  des  sciences  de  St.  Peters- 
bourg,  Leipzig,   1904. 

2.  ALEXANDER  OF  LYCOPOLIS.  —  In  the  first  half  of  the  fourth 
century  a  certain  Alexander  Lycopolites,  from  Lycopolis  in  the  The- 
bais,  wrote  a  work  against  the  Manichaeans.  Notwithstanding  its 
brevity  and  its  rude  and  obscure  diction  it  has  always  been  esteemed 
as  helpful  evidence  to  the  character  of  Manichaean  teaching.  Photius x 
calls  him  a  bishop  of  Lycopolis;  he  was  probably  neither  a  bishop 
nor  a  Christian,  but  a  heathen  and  a  Platonist. 

The  work  of  Alexander  is  edited  by  Fr.  Combefis,  Bibl.  Graec.  Patr. 
auctarium  novissimum,  Paris,  1672,  ii.  3 — -21,  and  reprinted  in  Mig?ie, 
PG.,  xviii.  409 — 448.  A.  Brinkmann  has  published  a  very  accurate  edition 
of  the  text,  Leipzig,  1895;  on  the  personality  and  date  of  this  writer 
see  Brinkmann  in  his  edition,  Praef,  pp.  xii  ff. 

3.  ST.  SERAPION  OF  THMUIS.  —  According  to  St.  Jerome2  Serapion, 
bishop  of  Thmuis  in  Lower  Egypt  and  a  faithful  companion  of  Atha- 
nasius  in  his  conflicts  and  sufferings  who  for  his  learning  was  known 
as  Scholasticus  (died  after  362),  wrote  Adversum  Manichaeum  egregium 
librum  et  de  Psalmorum  titulis  alium  et  ad  diversos  utiles  epistolas. 
Two  of  these  letters  were  published  by  Cardinal  Mai :  one  a  short  con- 
solatory letter  to  the  bishop  Eudoxius,  the  other  a  letter  of  encourage- 
ment to  some  monks  of  Alexandria.  Wobbermin  discovered  and  edited 
a  dogmatic  letter  «on  the  Father  and  the  Son»  (izEpt  Trarpbg  xai  mou). 
The  work  of  Serapion  on  the  titles  of  the  Psalms  seems  to  have 
perished.  His  treatise  against  the  Manichseans  is  extant,  and  fragments 
of  it  have  been  reprinted  from  time  to  time.  We  owe  to  Brinkmann 
(1894)  the  restoration  of  the  original  form  of  the  work.  In  this  shape 
it  is  really  an  excellent  composition ;  the  most  important  propositions 
of  Manichaeism  are  refuted  not  only  with  vigor  but  with  much  spirit 
and  acumen. 

1  Contra  Manichaeos,  i.   11.  2  De  viris  ill.,   c.  99. 


2/0  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

The  work  of  Serapion  against  the  Manichaeans  and  the  similar  work 
of  Titus  of  Bostra  (see  no.  4)  have  reached  us  through  one  (Genoese) 
manuscript  of  the  eleventh  century;  cf.  Pitra,  Analecta  sacra  et  classica 
(1888),  part  1,  pp.  44 — 46.  There  is  a  copy  of  this  codex  in  the  City 
Library  of  Hamburg;  cf.  de  Lagarde,  Titi  Bostreni  quae  ex  opere  contra 
Manichaeos  edito  in  codice  Hamburgensi  servata  sunt  graece,  e  recogn. 
P.  A.  de  L.,  Berlin,  1859,  iii.  By  reason  of  the  blundering  insertion  of  a 
4t0  leaf  in  this  codex,  and  consequently  in  the  copy,  three  fourths  of  the 
work  of  Serapion  were  made  to  pass  as  the  production  of  Titus.  De  Lagarde 
(1.  c.)  was  the  first  to  separate  this  interpolation  from  the  book  of  the  bishop 
of  Bostra,  while  Brinkmann  was  the  first  to  recognize  this  part  as  belonging 
to  the  work  of  Serapion  (Sitzungsberichte  der  k.  preuss.  Akad.  d.  Wissensch. 
zu  Berlin,  1894,  pp.479 — 491).  Previously  J.  Dräseke  (Gesammelte  Patrist. 
Untersuchungen,  Altona  and  Leipzig,  1889,  pp.  1 — 24)  fancied  he  saw  in 
this  interpolated  text  the  remnants  of  a  work  by  the  Macedonian  George  of 
Laodicea  (§  61,  2).  J.  Basnage,  Thesaurus  monumentorum  eccl.  et  hist., 
Antwerp,  1725,  i.  35 — 55,  edited  the  work  from  the  Hamburg  manuscript, 
and  his  edition  was  reprinted  in  Migne ,  PG.,  xl.  899 — 924.  We  owe  to 
Pitra,  1.  c,  pp.  48 — 49,  a  collation  of  this  manuscript  with  the  Genoese 
codex.  The  two  letters  edited  by  Mai  (see  no.  3)  are  reprinted  in  Migne, 
PG.,  xl.  923 — 942.  The  dogmatic  letter  and  thirty  liturgical  prayers,  the 
first  and  fifteenth  of  which  are  the  work  of  Serapion,  were  edited  by 
G.  Wobbermin,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  Leipzig,  1898,  xvii,  new 
series,  ii.  3b.  This  Euchologium  was  also  studied  by  P.  Drews,  in  Zeit- 
schrift f.  Kirchengeschichte  (1900),  xx.  291 — 328  415 — 441.  A  new  edition 
was  published  by  F.  E.  Brightman ,  in  Journal  of  Theological  Studies 
(1899— 1900),  i«  88 — Ir3  247 —  277-  ^  is  given  with  a  Latin  translation 
in  Funk,  Didascalia,  ii.  («Testimonia»)  158 — 195.  There' are  a  few  words 
«from  the  twenty- third  letter  of  Saint  Serapion» ,  in  Pitra,  Analecta  sacra 
(1884),  ii.  Proleg.  xl;  Analecta  sacra  et  classica  (1888),  part  1,  p.  47. 
In  Pitra,  Analecta  sacra  (1883),  iv.  214 — 215  443 — 444,  P.  Martin 
published  three  brief  Syriac  fragments  attributed  to  Serapion,  ex  homilia 
de  virginitate,  ex  epistola  ad  episcopos  confessores  and  a  sentence 
«incerti  loci». 

4.  TITUS  OF  BOSTRA.  —  Titus ,  bishop  of  Bostra  in  Arabia 
(Hauran),  and  well-known  for  his  relations  with  Julian  the  Apostate, 
(f  ca.  374)  *,  was  a  younger  contemporary  of  Serapion  of  Thmuis. 
He  has  left  us  a  work  in  four  books  against  the  Manichaeans,  that 
became  deservedly  famous  at  a  later  date.  The  first  two  books  are 
a  philosophico-dialectic  attack  on  the  Manichaean  dualism,  while 
in  the  other  two  books  he  uses  biblico-theological  arguments.  The 
work  has  a  special  historical  value  by  reason  of  the  numerous  literal 
quotations  from  Manichaean  writings.  The  only  extant  codex  of  the 
Greek  text  contains  but  the  first  two  books  and  a  small  portion  of 
the  third.  The  work  has  reached  us  entire  in  a  Syriac  version, 
published  (1859)  by  de  Lagarde  from  a  manuscript  of  the  year  411. 
Some  homily-like  fragments  of  a  commentary  on  St.  Luke  have 
also  been  preserved.  The  genuineness  of  an  Oratio  in  ramos  pal- 
mar urn  is  very  doubtful. 

1  Sozom  ,  Hist.  eccl.  v.   15. 


§    66.      ST.    CYRIL    OF  JERUSALEM.  2.J  \ 

For  the  manuscript-tradition  of  the  Greek  text  of  the  work  against 
the  Manichaeans  see  no.  3.  All  former  editions  were  made  from  the  Ham- 
burg copy:  Basnage ,  1.  c,  i.  56 — 162;  Migne ,  PG. ,  xviii.  1069 — 1264; 
de  Lagarde,  1.  c.  Pitra  printed  a  collation  of  the  Genoese  manuscript,  in 
Analecta  sacra  et  classica  (1888),  part.  1,  pp.  50 — 63.  With  the  aid  of 
the  Syriac  version  Lagarde  proved  (1.  c,  iii.)  that  a  long  section  (from  the 
work  of  Serapion  against  the  Manichees)  had  erroneously  been  inserted  in 
the  first  book  of  the  work  of  Titus:  Titi  Bostreni  contra  Manichaeos  libri 
quatuor  syriace,  P.  A.  de  Lagarde  ed.,  Berlin,  1859.  The  commentary  on  the 
Gospel  of  Saint  Luke,  edited  as  a  work  of  Titus  by  Fronto  Ducaeus  in  1624 
(reprinted  in  Magna  Bibl.  vet.  Patr.,  Paris,  1644,  xiii.  762 — 836)  is  only 
a  Catena-like  compilation  that  cannot  be  of  an  earlier  date  than  the  sixth 
century.  The  fragments  of  the  genuine  commentary  were  edited  by  J.  Sicken- 
berger,  Leipzig,  1901,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  new  series,  vi.  1. 
Id.,  Titus  von  Bostra,  Studien  zu  dessen  Lukashomilien  (Inaug.-Diss.),  Leipzig, 
1900;  Über  griechische  Evangelienkommentare,  in  Biblische  Zeitschrift 
(1903),  i.  182 — 193.  The  Oratio  in  ramos  palmarum  is  in  Migne,  1.  c, 
1263  — 1278.  For  a  Syriac  fragment  of  a  sermon  on  the  Epiphany  attributed 
to  Titus  of  Bostra  see  de  Lagarde,  Anmerkungen  zur  griechischen  Über- 
setzung der  Proverbien,  Leipzig,   1863,  pp.  94 — 95. 

5.  other  ANTi-MANiCHiEAN  writers.  —  To  this  period  belong  also 
the  anti-Manichaean  writers  Basil  the  Great  (§  67,  4),  Didymus  the  Blind 
(§  70,  2-,  cf.  §  69,  n),  and  Diodorus  of  Tarsus  (§  72,  2). 

§  66.    St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem. 

I.  HIS  LIFE.  —  The  birthplace  of  St.  Cyril  (ca.  315)  is  unknown; 
he  was  educated  at  Jerusalem.  About  345  he  was  ordained  priest 
by  Maximus  II.,  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  and  in  that  capacity  delivered 
in  347  or  348  his  famous  catechetical  instructions  to  the  candidates 
for  baptism  and  the  neophytes.  After  the  death  of  St.  Maximus  he 
was  chosen  (350  or  351)  to  succeed  him.  His  latest  biographer 
Mader  (1891)  contends  that  Cyril  was  already  a  bishop  in  347  or  348, 
and  as  such  delivered  the  Catechetical  discourses  in  348.  For  a  long 
time  Cyril  displayed  an  attitude  of  reserve  towards  the  contemporary 
dogmatic  controversies.  In  his  «Catecheses»  he  frequently  opposes 
Arianism,  but  without  speaking  of  Arius  or  the  Arians,  and  without 
once  mentioning  the  6/iooumoQ  although  he  decidedly  taught  the 
consubstantiality  of  Father  and  Son.  Nevertheless,  he  was  later  on  the 
object  of  much  hostility  and  persecution  on  the  part  of  the  Arians. 
They  began  with  a  conflict  that  arose  between  Cyril  and  Acacius, 
the  Arian  bishop  of  Caesarea  (§61,  1)  apropos  of  the  seventh  canon 
of  the  Council  of  Nicaea  which  acknowledged  in  the  bishop  of 
Jerusalem  a  primacy  of  honor,  without  detriment  of  the  metropolitan 
rights  of  Caesarea.  It  was  really  the  confessor  and  defender  of  the 
Nicene  faith  whom  the  Arians  attacked  on  this  occasion.  He  was 
three  times  expelled  from  his  see ;  the  third  exile  lasted  eleven  years 
(367 — 378).  In  381  he  assisted  at  the  (Second  Ecumenical)  Council 
of  Constantinople.    It  is  generally  believed  that  he  died  March  18.,  386. 


2/2  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

2.  THE  CATECHESES.  —  They  are  23  (24)  in  number1  and  present 
a  complete  body  of  doctrine.  The  first  18  (19)  are  addressed  to 
the  candidates  for  baptism,  (pcoziO'jusvoc,  and  were  delivered  during 
the  Lenten  season.  The  introductory  discourse,  7tpoxaz^^aiq9  treats 
of  the  greatness  and  importance  of  the  grace  about  to  be  bestowed 
upon  his  auditors.  The  first  catechesis  is  a  short  and  summary  re- 
petition of  the  principal  truths  of  the  procatechesis.  The  second 
treats  of  sin  and  penance,  the  third  of  the  meaning  and  effects  of 
baptism,  the  fourth  of  the  outlines  of  Christian  faith,  and  the  fifth 
of  the  nature  and  origin  of  the  theological  virtue  of  faith.  The 
following  catecheses  (6 — 18)  contain  a  continuous  exposition  and 
demonstration  of  every  word  and  every  sentence  in  the  Creed  as 
recited  at  baptism  according  to  the  Jerusalem  ritual.  At  Easter  the 
catechumens  were  baptized,  they  also  received  Confirmation  and  the 
Holy  Eucharist.  It  is  to  the  newly  baptized  Christians,  veoywTtorot, 
that  the  five  concluding  catecheses  are  addressed;  they  were  delivered 
in  Easter  week  and  are  much  shorter  than  the  preceding  instructions. 
They  aim  at  making  known  to  all  hearers  the  mysteries  of  Christianity, 
hence  they  are  called  xann^aeiQ  juuffrayajyixai,  and  offer  complete  in- 
struction, based  on  the  liturgical  ceremonies,  concerning  Baptism  ( 1 9 — 20), 
Confirmation  (21)  and  the  Holy  Eucharist  (22 — 23).  These  catecheses 
have  always  been  considered  models  of  their  kind.  Their  diction  is 
simple  and  clear,  and  the  entire  exposition  is  mildly  grave,  tranquil  and 
cordial.  Their  subject-matter  causes  them  to  be  looked  on  as  one  of 
the  most  precious  treasures  of  Christian  antiquity ;  the  five  mystagogical 
catecheses,  in  particular,  are  of  incalculable  value  for  the  history  of 
doctrine  and  the  liturgy.  The  doubts  once  entertained  by  Protestant 
scholars  as  to  the  genuineness  of  all  or,  at  least,  the  mystagogical 
catecheses,  were  suggested  by  sectarian  narrowness  and  have  long 
since  disappeared.  Cyril  bears  witness  to  the  Real  Presence  of 
Christ  in  the  Blessed  Eucharist  in  the  following  words  «In  the  figure 
of  bread,  sv  zützw  apzoo,  is  given  to  thee  the  Body,  and  in  the  figure 
of  wine  the  Blood,  so  that,  when  thou  receivest  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ,  thou  mayest  become  of  one  body  and  one  blood  with 
Him,  (TuaacujuoQ  xac  auuaifiog  adrou;  for  thus  we  shall  become  Christ- 
bearers,  yptoTOifopoL*  when  His  Body  and  His  Blood  are  distributed 
in  our  members»  (Cat.  xxii.  9).  «What  appears  to  be  bread  is  not 
bread,  although  it  seems  thus  to  the  taste,  but  it  is  the  Body  of  Christ, 
and  what  appears  to  be  wine  is  not  wine,  although  the  taste  judges 
thus,  but  it  is  the  Blood  of  Christ»  (Cat.  xxii.  9).  This  Real  Presence 
is  brought  about  by  a  changing  (fizraßöllziv)  of  the  substance  of  the 
bread  and  the  wine  into  the  substance  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
Christ.  «At  Cana  in  Galilee  He  once  changed  water  into  wine  which 
is   akin   to  blood :    and  shall  not  we  believe  Him  when  He  changes 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xxxiii. 


§    66.      ST.    CYRIL    OF  JERUSALEM.  273 

wine  into  blood?»  (Cat.  xxii.  2).  «We  beseech  the  good  God  to 
send  down  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  gifts  that  lie  before  us  (tu. 
TTpoxst/ieva),  and  thereby  make  the  bread  the  Body  of  Christ  and 
the  wine  the  Blood  of  Christ;  for  whatever  the  Holy  Spirit  touches 
is  completely  sanctified  and  changed»  (Cat.  xxiii.  7).  We  select 
the  following  words  from  his  description  and  explanation  of  the 
sacrifice  of  the  Mass:  «After  the  completion  of  the  spiritual  sacri- 
fice of  the  Mass,  after  the  completion  of  the  unbloody  worship 
(i.  e.  after  the  consecration)  we  pray  to  God  over  this  oblation  of 
propitiation  for  the  general  peace  of  the  churches  .  .  .  we  all  pray  and 
offer  this  sacrifice  for  every  one  who  is  in  need  of  help.  We 
remember  those  who  have  already  gone  before  us,  first  the  patriarchs, 
the  prophets,  the  apostles  and  the  martyrs,  so  that  through  their 
prayers  and  intercession  God  may  look  graciously  upon  our  petitions ; 
thereupon  we  pray  for  the  deceased  holy  fathers  and  bishops,  and 
indeed  for  all  our  departed,  since  we  believe  that  our  prayers 
offered  in  the  presence  of  this  holy  and  worshipful  sacrifice  will  be 
of  the  greatest  utility  to  these  souls  ...  we  offer  up  Christ  slain  for 
our  sins  in  order  to  obtain  pardon  from  the  good  God  for  them 
(the  departed)  and  for  ourselves»   (Cat.  xxiii.  8 — 10). 

3.  OTHER  WRITINGS.  —  We  possess,  moreover,  from  the  pen  of 
Cyril,  a  homily  on  the  paralytic  (John  v.  5)  delivered  about  345  *, 
a  letter  to  the  Emperor  Constantius  on  the  miraculous  apparition  at 
Jerusalem  of  a  great  shining  cross  (May  7.,  35 1)2,  and  three  brief 
homiletic  fragments3.  A  homily  on  the  feast  of  Hypapante,  or 
Purification  of  the  Blessed  Virgin4,  and  other  writings,  are  wrongly 
attributed  to  him. 

4.  literature.  —  The  best  edition  of  the  works  of  Cyril  is  that  of 
the  Benedictine  A.  A.  Touttie  (f  17 18),  Paris,  1720;  Venice,  1763  (Migne, 
PG.,  xxxiii).  The  edition  of  W.  K.  Reischl  and  J.  Rupp  (Munich,  1848 
to  i860,  2  vols.)  is  excellent  and  handy.  Nolte  contributed  some  pages 
of  text-  criticism,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1862),  xliv.  308 — 316.  The  latest 
edition  is  that  of  Photius  Alexandrides ,  with  notes  by  Dionysius  Kleophas, 
Jerusalem,  1867 — 1868,  2  vols.  See  Risi ,  Di  una  nuova  edizione  delle 
opere  di  S.  Cirillo  Geros.,  Rome,  1884.  An  Armenian  (incomplete)  edition 
of  the  Catecheses  was  published  at  Vienna  in  1832.  They  were  trans- 
lated into  German  by  J.  Nirschl,  Kempten,  187 1  (Bibliothek  der  Kirchen- 
väter). There  is  an  English  translation  of  the  Saint's  writings  by  E.  H. 
Gifford }  in  «A  Select  Library  of  Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers  of  the 
Christian  Church»,  New  York,  1894,  sect.  II,  vol.  vii.  J.  Th.  Pütt,  De 
Cyrilli  Hierosolymitani  orationibus  quae  exstant  catecheticis ,  Heidelberg, 
1855.  Ph"  Gönnet,  De  S.  Cyrilli  Hierosolymitani  archiepiscopi  catechesi- 
bus,  Paris,  1876.  J.  Marquardt ,  S.  Cyrilli  Hierosolymitani  de  contentio- 
nibus  et  placitis  Arianorum  sententia,  Brunsberg,  1881 ;  Id. ,  S.  Cyrillus 
Hierosolymitanus  baptismi ,    chrismatis,    eucharistiae  mysteriorum  interpres, 

1  Ib.,  xxxiii.   1 131  — 1154.  2  Ib.,  xxxiii.   1165 — 1176. 

3  Ib.,  xxxiii.   1 1 81  —  1 182.  4  Ib.,  xxxiii.   1187 — 1204. 

Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  .  1 8 


274  SECOND   PERIOD.      FIRST   SECTION. 

Leipzig,  1882.  V.  Schmitt,  Die  Verheissung  der  Eucharistie  (St.  John  c.  vi) 
bei  den  Antiochenern  Cyrillus  von  Hierusalem  und  Joh.  Chrysostomus, 
Würzburg,  1903.  A.  Knappitsch ,  S.  Cyrilli  episc.  Hierosol.  catechesibus 
quae  principia  et  praecepta  moralia  contineantur  (Progr.),  Graz,  1899. 
G.  Delacroix,  St.  Cyrille  de  Jerusalem,  sa  vie  et  ses  oeuvres,  Paris,  1865. 
J.  Mader,  Der  hl.  Cyrillus,  Bischof  von  Jerusalem,  in  seinem  Leben  und 
seinen  Schriften,  Einsiedeln,   1891. 

5.  gelasius  of  CAESAREA,  sophronius.  —  Gelasius,  bishop  of  Caesarea 
(ca.  367 — 395),  son  of  a  sister  of  Saint  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  left  some  writ- 
ings that  have  perished.  See  E.  Venables,  in  Smit/i  and  Wace,  A  Dictionary 
of  Christian  Biography,  ii.  621.  —  The  writings  of  Sophronius,  a  resident 
in  Palestine  perhaps  at  Bethlehem,  and  a  friend  of  St.  Jerome  (De  viris  ill., 
c.  134),  have  also  perished  (cf.  §  2,  1).  Papadopulos-Kerameus  published 
in  the  'AvaXsx-ca  wpofroXoji.tT«*jc  7xajuoAo'(vxi  v,  St.  Petersburg,  1898,  a  Greek 
life  of  the  famous  monk  St.  Hilarion;  he  considers  it  an  enlargement  of 
Sophronius'  Greek  translation   of  Jerome's  Vita  beati  Hilarionis  (§  93,  6). 

§  67.    St.  Basil  the  Great. 

I.  THE  YOUTH  OF  BASIL.  —  SS.  Basil,  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  and 
Gregory  of  Nyssa  are  a  splendid  constellation  in  the  heaven  of  the 
Church  of  Cappadocia.  «In  this  trinity»,  it  has  been  said,  «are 
concentrated  all  the  rays  ofthat  brilliant  epoch  of  Christianity».  Basil 
was  born  at  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia,  probably  in  331,  in  a  family  no 
less  renowned  for  its  Christian  piety  than  for  its  nobility  and  riches. 
From  earliest  youth  his  heart  and  mind  were  cultivated  with  watchful 
care.  He  was  an  object  of  particular  solicitude  to  his  grandmother 
Macrina,  a  woman  of  rare  refinement  and  profoundly  religious  spirit. 
She  took  charge  of  him  almost  in  infancy,  and  accustomed  him  gra- 
dually to  the  restraints  of  a  wise  discipline,  while  she  planted  deep 
in  his  heart  the  teachings  of  St.  Gregory  Thaumaturgus  *.  His 
elementary  training  he  received  from  his  father  Basil ,  a  highly  re- 
spected rhetorician  of  Neocaesarea  in  Pontus.  The  talented  youth 
sought  higher  education,  first  in  his  native  Caesarea,  then  at  Con- 
stantinople, and  afterwards  at  Athens.  In  this  last  city  he  entered 
into  intimate  relations  with  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  whom  he  had  al- 
ready known  at  Caesarea.  The  two  young  friends  were  industrious 
and  persevering,  hence  they  made  rapid  progress  in  rhetoric,  grammar 
and  philosophy.  But  that  Athens  which  failed,  even  in  the  beginning, 
to  satisfy  thoroughly  the  heart  of  our  Basil,  could  not  hope  to  make 
a  deeper  impression  on  him  as  time  went  by.  After  a  stay  of  four  or 
five  years  he  returned  to  his  native  city  in  359.  Before  long  he  had 
resolved  to  abandon  his  home,  to  renounce  the  brilliant  career  that 
lay  before  him  at  Caesarea  and  Neocaesarea,  and  to  embrace  a  life  of 
asceticism.  «I  had  wasted  much  time  on  follies»,  he  wrote  in  375, 
«and  spent  nearly  all  my  youth  in  vain  labors,  and  devotion  to  the 
teachings   of  a   wisdom    that  God   had  made  foolish  (1   Cor.   1.   20). 

1  Basil.,  Ep.   204,   n.   6. 


§    67.      ST.    BASIL    THE    GREAT.  275 

Suddenly  I  awoke  as  out  of  a  deep  sleep;  I  beheld  the  wonderful 
light  of  the  Gospel  truth,  and  I  recognized  the  nothingness  of  the 
wisdom  of  the  princes  of  this  world  that  was  come  to  naught  (i  Cor. 
ii.  6).  I  shed  a  flood  of  tears  over  my  wretched  life,  and  I  prayed 
for  a  guide  who  might  form  in  me  the  principles  of  piety1.» 

2.  BASIL  AS  MONK  AND  PRIEST.  —  After  his  baptism  by  Dianius, 
metropolitan  of  Caesarea,  Basil  journeyed  through  Syria  and  Egypt  in 
order  to  see  with  his  own  eyes  the  life  of  the  monks  in  those  lands. 
His  travels  gave  him  ample  opportunities  of  studying  at  first  hand 
the  dogmatic  questions  that  were  then  rending  the  Christian  East. 
On  his  return  he  divided  his  fortune  among  the  poor  and  began,  not 
far  from  Neocaesarea,  a  life  entirely  devoted  to  God.  He  preferred 
the  cenobitic  system  or  the  cloistered  life  in  common 2,  to  the  ancho- 
rite or  hermit  life;  his  teaching  and  example  were  so  powerful  that 
Rufinus  could  feel  justified  in  saying 3  that  in  a  short  time  all  Pontus 
had  put  on  another  appearance :  Brevi  permutata  est  totius  provinciae 
fades. 

Gregory  of  Nazianzus  was  often  a  sojourner  in  this  Pontic  desert, 
and  aided  Basil  in  the  formation  of  a  rule  for  the  monasteries  that 
soon  arose  on  all  sides.  They  also  published  a  selection  from  the 
works  of  Origen,  'QptyevooQ  (pdoxaXia,  the  result  of  their  common 
industry  (§  39,  2).  About  364  Eusebius,  metropolitan  of  Caesarea, 
the  successor  of  Dianius,  persuaded  Basil  to  enter  the  priesthood 
and  to  return  to  the  episcopal  city.  With  the  elevation  of  Valens 
to  the  imperial  throne  (July,  364),  Arianism  got  a  fresh  lease  of 
life;  attempts  were  soon  made  to  win  over  the  faithful  of  Caesarea, 
whose  bishop  was  not  only  metropolitan  of  Cappadocia,  but  also 
exarch  of  the  Pontic  «diocese»,  one  of  the  five  «dioceses»  or  chief 
political  divisions  of  the  Roman  East  (praefectura  Orientis).  These 
were  days  of  danger  for  Eusebius  who  was  not  a  skilled  theologian; 
and  what  the  services  of  Basil  meant,  is  well-expressed  by  Gregory 
of  Nazianzus  4 :  «He  was  all  in  all  to  him,  a  good  counsellor,  a  skilful 
helper,  an  expounder  of  the  Scriptures,  an  interpreter  of  his  duties, 
the  staff  of  his  old  age,  the  prop  of  his  faith,  more  trustworthy  than 
all  his  clerics,  more  experienced  than  any  layman.»  For  the  rest, 
Basil  led  at  Caesarea  the  same  ascetic  life  as  in  his  Pontic  cloister. 
In  368  a  great  famine  visited  Cappadocia,  and  Basil  devoted  to  the 
support  of  the  poor  the  fortune  that  had  fallen  to  him  on  the  death 
of  his  mother  Emmelia. 

3.  basil,  metropolitan  OF  CAESAREA.  —  Eusebius  died  in  370, 
and  Basil  was  chosen  to  succeed  him,  an  election  strongly  favored 
by  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  and  his  father,  the  bishop  of  that  city. 
Basil  justified   their  faith  in  him.     His  first   care  was  to    reform  cer- 

1  Ep.  223,  n,  2.  2  Basil.,  Regulae  fusiores,  n.   7. 

3  Hist,  eccl.,  ii.  9.  4  Orat.  43,   in  laudem  Basil.  M.,  n.   33. 

18* 


2/6  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

tain  abuses  in  the  life  of  his  clergy,  to  arrange  and  improve  the 
liturgy,  and  to  open  places  of  refuge  for  suffering  humanity.  In  371 
the  province  of  Cappadocia  was  divided  and  two  capitals  were  created, 
Caesarea  and  Tyana,  whereupon  grievous  discord  arose  between  Basil 
and  Anthimus,  bishop  of  Tyana,  concerning  the  limits  of  their  juris- 
diction. He  had  to  put  up  with  suspicion  and  reproach  for  his 
mildness  and  patience  during  many  years  in  dealing  with  the  double- 
tongued  Eustathius,  bishop  of  Sebaste.  He  attempted  frequently, 
but  in  vain,  to  heal  the  Meletian  schism  at  Antioch.  His  chief  con- 
cern, however,  was  the  overthrow  of  Arianism.  Amid  all  the  dark 
storms  of  the  time  he  towered  like  a  beacon-light  showing  the  haven 
of  safety  to  all  who  were  of  good  will.  All  the  onslaughts  of  he- 
resy fell  powerless  before  him ,  whether  they  came  as  violence  and 
threats,  or  as  flattery  and  deception,  or  as  cunning  dialectic  and 
delusive  exegesis.  After  Athanasius,  it  was  to  Basil  that  the  East 
owed  the  restoration  of  peace,  as  soon  as  external  conditions  permitted 
it.  He  lived  to  see  at  least  the  dawning  of  better  days.  On  January  1., 
379,  his  soul  quitted  its  bodily  tenement,  which  had  long  been 
withering  and  wasting  away. 

4.  DOGMATlCO-PoLEMlCAL  WRITINGS.  —  Basil  left  many  writings, 
dogmatic,  exegetic  and  ascetic,  together  with  homilies  and  letters. 
The  extant  dogmatic  writings  are  devoted  to  the  overthrow  of 
Arianism.  The  work  against  Eunomius  (§61,  1)  'AvarpeTzrtxbQ  too 
'A-KoXoyr/TLXoo  too  doaaeßooQ  Eövopioo 1  must  have  been  composed  about 
363  or  364.  He  begins  by  calling  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
very  title  of  his  adversary's  work,  'ATroÄoyyTtxbg,  bewrays  a  deceitful 
purpose;  he  is  desirous  to  appear  as  writing  in  self-defence,  whereas 
he  himself  is  the  attacking  party.  Thereupon,  he  deals  in  the  first 
book  with  two  principal  contentions  of  Eunomius,  viz.,  that  not  to 
be  begotten,  to  ayivvyTov  ehai,  is  the  very  essence  of  God,  and  that 
in  this  concept  of  unbegotten  being  the  nature  of  God  is  known 
(comprehended)  in  a  perfectly  adequate  manner.  Basil  maintains  that 
unbegotten  being,  in  the  sense  of  uncreated  being,  is  only  an  at- 
tribute of  the  divinity:  iyw  ok  ttjv  pkv  odaiav  too  ftsoo  dyivvytov  elvm 
xai  aoTOQ  äu  (paiyv  00  pr^v  to  äyivvrjTov  tyjv  odaiav2.  He  maintains, 
moreover,  that  the  comprehension  of  the  divine  nature  surpasses  not 
only  human  capacity,  but  all  created  capacity  whatsoever:  olpat 
de  oox  ävttpojTTOog  pövov ,  aA?A  xai  rJiaav  Aoytxrjv  (poatv  07ispßoivsi\< 
aÖTTJc,  —  sc.  TTJQ  odaiac,  too  ßsoo  —  Trp  xaxahpJHS) 3.  The  second 
book  is  devoted  to  the  defence  of  the  consubstantiality  of  the  Son. 
The  essential  attribute  of  uncreatedness  is  not  annulled  by  generation 
from  the  Father  which  is  the  proper  distinctive  mark  of  the  person 
of  the  Son.     Although  begotten ,    the  Son  has    never   had    a   begin- 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xxix.  497 — 773.  2  Adv.  Eun.,   i.   II.  3  Ib.,   i.    14. 


§    67.      ST.    BASIL    THE    GREAT.  277 

ning;  it  is  from  all  eternity  that  He  receives  from  the  Father  His 
divine  nature,  hence  is  He  consubstantial  with  the  Father  and  co- 
eternal.  In  the  third  book  Basil  refutes  the  objections  of  Eunomius 
against  the  divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  two  following  books 
are  also  devoted  to  the  defence  of  the  consubstantiality  of  the  Son 
and  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  they  have  reached  us  in  an  incomplete 
state,  or  as  excerpts;  very  probably  they  do  not  belong  to  St.  Basil 
but  to  Didymus  the  Blind  (§  70,  2).  The  work  on  the  Holy  Spirit 
xtpt  too  äyioo  Trveu/iaroQ1,  written  about  375,  treats  also  of  the  con- 
substantiality  of  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit  with  the  Father.  In 
public  worship  Basil  had  made  use  of  the  doxology:  Glory  be  to 
the  Father  with  the  Son  together  with  the  Holy  Spirit  f/uszä  too 
oloo  abv  zw  nveofiart  reo  äpw)2,  maintaining  that  it  was  no  less 
orthodox  than  the  usual  formula :  Glory  be  to  the  Father  through  the 
Son  in  the  Holy  Spirit  (dtä  too  oloo  iv  tw  ayico  rcvsujuazij.  In  this 
work,  dedicated  to  Amphilochius,  bishop  of  Iconium,  he  justifies  the 
former  expression  on  the  ground  that  equal  honor  with  the  Father 
belongs  to  both  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  because  they  are  of 
one  and  the  same  nature  with  the  Father.  He  wrote  also,  according 
to  Saint  Augustine3,  a  Liber  adver sus  Manichaeos ,  but  it  has  not 
reached  us. 

5 .  EXEGETIC  WRITINGS.  —  The  place  of  honor  among  his  exegetic 
writings  belongs  to  the  nine  homilies  on  the  Hexaemeron4  (Gen.  i. 
1 — 26)  and  the  fifteen  homilies  on  particular  Psalms5.  The  former  were 
highly  esteemed,  even  in  antiquity,  by  both  East  and  West.  Although 
his  diction  is  very  elaborate,  he  nowhere  departs  from  the  literal  sense 
and  eschews  all  allegory.  It  does  not  appear  that  he  ever  published 
the  treatise  announced  at  the  end  of  this  work 6,  namely :  On  man  as 
the  image  of  God.  Two  other  homilies  entitled  De  hominis  structura 
and  a  third  De  paradiso 7,  formerly  attributed  to  Basil  and  held  to 
be  a  part  of  those  nine  homilies,  are  spurious.  The  homilies  on  the 
Psalms  were  meant  by  the  author  to  furnish,  not  so  much  an  ex- 
egesis of  the  text  as  a  moral  application  of  the  same  to  the  needs 
of  the  hearer  or  reader.  They  begin  after  the  following  manner 
(Horn,  in  Ps.  1,  n.  1):  «The  prophets  teach  one  thing,  the  historical 
books  another,  still  another  is  taught  in  the  Law,  and  something- 
else  in  the  Sapiential  Books.  The  Book  of  Psalms  brings  together 
what  is  most  serviceable  in  all  the  others;  it  foretells  the  future,  it 
recalls  the  past,  it  lays  down  the  laws  of  life,  it  teaches  us  our 
duties,  —  in  a  word,  it  is  a  general  treasury,  ra/itswv,  of  excellent 
instructions.»  There  is  no  doubt  as  to  the  authenticity  of  the  ho- 
milies  on  Psalms   1   7   14   (two  homilies)  28  29  32   33  44  45  48   59 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xxxii.  67 — 218.  2  De  Spir.   S.,  c.    I,   n.  3. 

3  Contra  Iulianum,   i.    16.  4  Migne,  PG.,  xxix.   3 — 208. 

5  Ib.,  xxix — xxx.  6  Horn.  9,  n.   6.  7  Migne,  PG.,  xxx. 


278  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

61  114  115  (according  to  Greek  numeration)1,  some  other  homilies 
on  the  Psalms 2  are  spurious  or  doubtful 3.  The  publication  by  Pitra 
(1888)  of  short  fragments  of  Psalm-homilies  attributed  to  Basil  con- 
firms the  opinion  that  Basil  wrote  homilies  on  many,  perhaps  on  all 
the  Psalms.  The  diffuse  commentary  on  Is.  1  — 16 4  is  very  im- 
perfect in  form  and  contents;  though  its  origin  is  doubtful,  yet  it 
must  be  looked  on  as  a  contemporary  work.  Basil  wrote  also  a  com- 
mentary on  Job  which  has  perished;  some  of  his  exegetic  homilies 
are  in  the  collection  referred  to  below  (no.   7). 

6.  ASCETIC  WRITINGS.  —  A  group  of  writings  attributed  to  Basil 
that  has  only  gradually  reached  its  actual  size,  is  known  as  'Aaxyzixd5. 
It  opens  with  three  short  treatises  (discourses  or  fragments  of  dis- 
courses), on  the  sublimity  of  the  militia  Christi,  the  excellency  of 
the  monastic  life,  ßioq  zcov  fiovaycov,  and  the  duties  of  a  monk.  Two 
other  treatises  on  divine  judgment,  Tiepl  xpipazog  tieou,  and  on  faith, 
Trap}  marecoQ,  are  introductory  to  certain  moral  instructions,  zd  rj&ixd, 
or  eighty  rules,  opoi.  Each  instruction  is  usually  made  up  of  several 
phrases,  and  each  phrase  is  accompanied  by  pertinent  passages  of 
the  New  Testament.  Basil  insists  first  on  the  general  Christian  duties, 
and  then  on  those  of  particular  states  in  life.  Two  Xoyoi  daxrjzixoi, 
of  doubtful  origin,  serve  as  a  link  between  these  instructions  and 
the  two  monastic  rules  of  St.  Basil :  fifty-five  longer  rules ,  opoi 
xazd  Tzldzog,  in  number,  and  313  shorter  rules,  opoi  xaz  inizo/ifjv. 
Both  are  drawn  up  in  the  shape  of  questions  and  answers.  In  the 
former  rules  the  principles  of  the  monastic  life  are  set  forth;  in 
the  latter  the  main  object  is  their  application  to  the  daily  life  of 
the  monk.  No  higher  praise  can  be  given  to  these  rules,  undoubt- 
edly Basil's  own  work,  than  the  fact  of  their  universal  reception 
in  the  East,  and  their  survival  to  the  present  time  as  the  principal 
monastic  rule  of  the  Greek  Church  (Basilians).  The  last  two  pieces 
in  this  group  are  punishments,  eTtizipia,  for  monks  and  nuns  who 
violate  the  rule,  and  ascetic  constitutions,  doxyzixai  diazdgeiq,  i.  e. 
comprehensive  directions  and  suggestions  for  monks;  neither  is  any 
longer  accepted  as  genuine.  The  beautiful  tractate  on  baptism,  xep} 
ßanziapazoQ,  in  two  books6,  is  more  ascetic  than  doctrinal  in  its  con- 
tents, and  is  likewise  of  doubtful  origin.  Altogether  inferior  and 
certainly  spurious  is  the  work  on  the  true  purity  of  virgins :  nept  zyjq 
su  TtapDevia  dfyäoug  dtpftopiag7.  To  the  Latin  West  and  a  later  time 
belong  the  following  texts,  extant  in  Latin  only:  De  consolatione  in 
adversiss,  De  laude  solitariae  vitae,  and  Admonitio  ad  filium  spiri- 
tual em. 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xxix.  2  Ib.,  xxx. 

3  Among  them  in  Migne,  PG.,  xxx.    104 — 106,   also  the  homily  to  Ps.    115. 

4  Migne,  PG.,  xxx.  5  Ib.,  xxxi.  619 — 1428.  6  Ib.,    xxxi.   15 13 — 1628. 
7  Ib.,  xxx.   669 — 810.              8  Ib.,  xxxi.   1687 — 1704. 


§    67.      ST.    BASIL   THE    GREAT.  279 

7.  HOMILIES.  LETTERS.  «LITURGY».  —  The  genuineness  or  spurious- 
ness  respectively  of  some  «Homilies»  attributed  to  Basil  is  a  difficult 
question.  It  may  be  said  at  once  that  a  collection  of  24  homilies  \ 
dogmatico-exegetic,  theologico-moral  and  hagiographical  in  contents,  is 
looked  on  in  a  general  way  as  authentic.  Basil  is  reckoned  among  the 
greatest  ecclesiastical  orators  of  antiquity.  Perhaps  the  most  brilliant 
specimen  of  his  eloquence  is  the  homily  against  usurers,  xara  toxi^ovtwv. 
printed  among  his  exegetic  homilies  (see  no.  5)  as  the  second  homily 
on  Psalm  142.  None  of  the  24  homilies  has  attracted  more  universal 
attention  and  approval  than  the  discourse  (work)  «to  youths,  as  to  how 
they  shall  best  profit  by  the  writings  of  the  pagan  authors»,  Ttpbg  zobg 
vioug  oTicog  av  i$  kXlrqvtxojv  axpeXdlvTO  XoycDV^.  The  twenty -four 
«Moral  discourses»,  jj&txol  loyoi^,  are  a  tenth-century  compilation  by 
Simeon  Metaphrastes  from  the  writings  of  Basil.  The  authenticity  of 
the  homily  on  mulieres  subintroductae,  izep\  rcbv  auvsiadxrcov6,  is 
disputed;  but  many  other  discourses,  e.  g.  De  Spiritu  Sancto  (in 
sanctum  baptisma),  Horn,  dicta  in  Lacizis ,  In  S.  Christi  gener a- 
tionem  etc.6  are  very  probably  spurious.  —  The  correspondence  of 
Basil  was  highly  esteemed.  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  tells  us  that  he 
collected  for  a  young  friend  (the)  letters  of  St.  Basil 7.  In  the  Bene- 
dictine edition8  there  are  365  of  these  letters.  Two  thirds  of  them 
(47 — 291)  belong  to  the  period  of  his  episcopal  career,  from  370  to 
378.  The  chronological  order  of  the  Benedictine  edition  of  the  letters 
was  challenged  by  Ernst  (1896)  but  victoriously  defended  by  Loofs 
(1898).  Most  of  the  letters  describe  in  detail,  from  one  stand-point 
or  another,  events  and  conditions  in  the  Eastern  Church,  particularly 
in  that  of  Cappadocia,  and  have  always  been  looked  on  as  a  copious 
and  important  store  of  original  materials  for  the  history  of  that 
troubled  period.  Some  of  the  letters  deal  directly  with  points  of 
Trinitarian  doctrine,  and  are  occasionally  so  long  that  they  may 
be  regarded  as  treatises.  The  three  so-called  «Canonical  letters» 
(188  199  217)  addressed  to  Amphilochius ,  bishop  of  Iconium  (see 
no.  4),  and  wrongly  denied  to  be  Basil's  by  some  modern  critics, 
contain  minute  ecclesiastical  regulations  concerning  the  penitential 
discipline;  at  a  later  date  they  acquired  canonical  authority  through 
the  entire  East.  The  letters  of  Basil  to  his  famous  contemporary, 
the  teacher  and  rhetorician  Libanius,  are  undoubtedly  spurious,  as 
well  as  those  of  Libanius  to  Basil  (335 — 359);  the  same  may  be 
said  of  the  correspondence  of  the  Saint  with  the  emperor  Julian 
(39  40  41  360).  Dräseke  holds  the  authenticity  of  the  correspon- 
dence of  Basil  with  Apollinaris  of  Laodicea  (361 — 364),  while  Loofs 

1  Ib.,  xxxi.    163—618.  2  Ib.,  xxix.  263—280. 

3  Ib.,  xxxi.   563 — 590.  4  xxxii.    1115 — 1382. 

5  Ib.,  xxx.  811—828.  6  Ib.,  xxxi.    1429— 1 514. 

7  Greg.  Naz.,  Ep.  53.  8  Migne,  PG.,  xxxii.  219 — 11 10. 


280  SECOND    PERIOD.      FIRST   SECTION. 

rejects  the  letters  as  forgeries.  —  The  so-called  «Liturgy  of  Saint 
Basil»1  has  reached  us  in  the  Greek  text,  and  a  Coptic  translation 
of  the  same.  It  may  be  looked  on  as  certain  that  Saint  Basil  did 
reduce  to  a  fixed  form  and  order  the  usual  prayers  and  ceremonies 
of  the  Church  of  Caesarea,  and  that  in  this  process  he  curtailed  and 
enlarged  with  more  or  less  freedom.  But  it  is  no  longer  an  easy 
matter  to  decide  with  what  measure  of  exactness  the  actual  «Liturgy» 
reproduces  the  dispositions  and  order  of  the  holy  bishop,  all  the 
more  as  the  manuscripts  of  the  «Liturgy»,  and  even  the  earliest 
versions  of  the  same,  exhibit  notable  variations. 

8.  GREATNESS  OF  ST.  BASIL.  HIS  RULE  OF  FAITH.  —  Basil  was 
styled  the  Great  even  by  his  contemporaries,  and  he  deserved  the 
title  for  many  reasons.  He  was  great  as  an  exponent  of  Christian 
doctrine  and  as  a  homilist,  greater,  however,  in  practical  life,  as  a 
prelate  of  the  Church  and  a  man  of  deeds.  We  may  justly  say  that 
of  the  three  great  Cappadocians  Basil  was  the  practical  man,  Gregory 
of  Nazianzus  the  speaker  and  writer,  Gregory  of  Nyssa  the  thinker. 
We  have  already  referred  to  the  merits  and  success  of  this  great 
Saint  as  standard-bearer  of  the  true  faith,  as  patriarch  of  Oriental 
monasticism,  and  as  ecclesiastical  legislator.  His  writings  against 
the  heresies  of  his  time  are  all  devoted  to  the  establishment  of  the 
traditional  teachings  of  the  Church.  The  formula  Fides  praecedit 
intellectum  is  occasionally  stated  by  him  as  follows:  «In  all  discus- 
sions concerning  God  it  is  faith  that  should  lead  the  way  (tzioziq 
vjYEiadco  Ttbv  nepi  deoo  Xoywv),  faith  and  not  evidence,  faith  that 
compels  the  intellect  to  assent  with  more  power  than  the  conclusions 
of  reason,  that  faith  which  is  the  result  of  no  geometrical  necessity 
but  of  the  workings  of  the  Holy  Spirit»  2.  It  is  tradition  that  fixes 
for  us  the  contents  of  our  faith.  «We  accept  no  new  faith  written 
out  for  us  by  others,  nor  do  we  proclaim  the  results  of  our  own 
cogitation,  lest  mere  human  wisdom  should  be  accounted  the  rule 
of  faith ;  we  communicate  to  all  who  question  us  that  which  the  holy 
fathers  have  taught  us»  3.  Only  a  portion  of  this  tradition  is  found 
in  the  Scriptures.  «With  regard  to  the  objection  that  there  is  no 
evidence  for  the  doxology  'with  the  Holy  Spirit'  (abv  zw  nveüfiazi, 
see  no.  4)  and  that  it  is  not  found  in  Scripture,  we  answer  as  fol- 
lows: in  case  nothing  must  be  accepted  except  what  is  found  in 
Scripture,  this  too  must  be  rejected ;  but  if  it  be  true  that  the  greater 
part  of  the  mysteries,  za  TzAelaza  zcbv  fAuozix&v,  are  accepted  by  us, 
though  they  are  not  found  in  the  Scriptures,  we  shall  do  well  to 
accept  this  also  with  so  many  other  elements  of  our  belief.  I  main- 
tain as  apostolic  teaching  that  we  should  hold  fast  to  our  traditions, 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xxxi.    1629—1678.  2  Horn,  in  Ps.    115,  n.    1. 

3  Ep.    140,  n.   2. 


§    67.      ST.    BASIL   THE    GREAT.  28 1 

even  if  they  be  not  stated  in  the  Scriptures».     He  then  adduces  the 
text  of  1  Cor.  xi.  2  and  2  Thess.  ii.    1 5  *. 

9.  HIS  TRINITARIAN  DOCTRINE.  —  The  Trinity  is,  naturally 
enough,  the  chief  subject  of  the  dogmatic  writings  of  Basil.  Against 
the  Arians  he  maintains  the  unity  of  God,  and  against  the  Sabellians 
the  trinity  of  persons  in  the  Godhead:  pea  oöaia,  rpelc,  ünoardaetQ. 
«In  God»,  he  writes  to  his  brother  Gregory2,  «there  are  at  once  a 
certain  ineffable  and  incomprehensible  community  and  distinction :  the 
distinction  of  persons  does  not  exclude  the  unity  of  nature,  nor  does 
the  unity  of  nature  destroy  the  proper  and  characteristic  marks  of 
distinction.»  In  the  homily  that  he  delivered  against  the  Sabellians 
and  Arius  and  the  Anomceans 3  he  says  still  more  pointedly:  «It  is  a 
shocking  folly  not  to  accept  the  teaching  of  our  Lord  who  makes 
known  to  us  with  all  clearness  the  distinction  of  persons  (in  the  Trinity). 
'For,  when  I  go',  says  he*  'I  will  ask  the  Father,  and  He  will  give 
you  another  Paraclete'.  Therefore  the  Son  prays,  He  prays  to  the 
Father,  the  Paraclete  is  sent.  Is  it  not  preposterous  to  hear  T  predi- 
cated of  the  Son,  'He'  of  the  Father,  and  'Another'  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  yet  to  confound  all  three,  to  commingle  them  all,  and  to  attribute 
to  one  thing,  kvi  izpaypan,  all  these  qualifications?  Do  not  imagine, 
on  the  other  hand,  that  you  may  carry  off  as  an  impious  booty  the 
separation  of  the  persons.  Though  they  are  two  in  number,  they 
are,  nevertheless,  not  different  in  nature,  and  he  who  speaks  of  two, 
does  not  thereby  assert  that  they  are  separate.  There  is  one  God 
who  (instead  of  ort  the  text  should  read  oq)  is  also  Father,  one  God 
who  is  also  Son;  there  are  not  two  Gods,  for  the  Son  is  identical 
in  nature  with  the  Father  (ercetdrj  raüTüTTjTa  syst  6  oloq  npög  rbv 
Tiazipa).  For  I  do  not  behold  one  divinity  in  the  Father  and  another 
in  the  Son,  nor  different  natures  in  both.  In  order  therefore  to 
make  clear  the  distinction  of  persons,  count  the  Father  apart  and  the 
Son  apart ;  but  in  order  to  avoid  polytheism ,  confess  that  in  both 
there  exists  absolute  unity  of  nature.  In  this  way  Sabellius  is  cast 
down  and  the  Anomcean  is  routed.»  —  Basil  undertook  repeatedly 
the  defence  of  the  opoooaia  or  true  divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in 
forcible  language  and  at  much  length,  especially  in  the  third  book 
of  his  work  Adversus  Eunomium  and  in  his  work  De  Spiritu  Sancto. 
The  circumstances  of  the  time  were  however  very  favorable  to  the 
Pneumatomachi ,  and  this  made  Basil  refrain  for  the  most  part  from 
calling  the  Holy  Spirit  God;  some  of  his  fellow-Catholics  were  con- 
cerned about  this  and  raised  their  voices  in  accusation  against  him. 
But  he  was  defended  by  Gregory  of  Nazianzus5.  «It  is  better»,  he 
says,  «to  exercise  prudence  in  dealing  with  the  truth,  olxovopetv  rrjv 
aXrj&Btav.  and  to  look  upon  the  circumstances  as  a  kind  of  overhanging 

1  De  Spir.   S.,  c.   29,  n.   71.  2  Ep.   38,  n.  4.  3  Horn.   24,  n.   3. 

4  John  xiv.    16.  5  Ep.   58. 


282  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

cloud,  than  to  do  harm,  xarakueiv,  to  the  truth  by  an  open  profession 
of  it. »  He  defended  Basil  elsewhere ,  after  the  same  fashion  K  — 
The  procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  described,  after  the  prevalent 
Greek  manner  of  comprehension  and  expression,  as  a  procession  from 
the  Father  through  the  Son  (ev  de  xai  to  äywv  Ttueupa  .  .  .  dt  evbq 
uloo  to)  ev\  7tazp\  oovaTTTOfievov2,  and  to  ßaadixbv  dgccopa  ex  TtaTpbg 
dca  too  povoyevoug  en\  to  rcveopa  dvqxet) 3.  In  the  fifth  book  of  his 
work  Adv.  Eunomium  he  says  repeatedly  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  ex 
$eou  dt  uloB1.  In  the  same  work  Adv.  Eunomium,  books  I — 3,  he  even 
stands  for  the  filioque,  and  not  as  a  theological  opinion  but  as  cer- 
tainly being  a  point  of  Christian  revelation.  Eunomius  attributed  to 
the  Son  alone,  tw  povoyevei  /iovoj,  the  origin  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
whereas  Basil  protested  strongly,  but  readily  granted  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  proceeds  also  from  the  Son5.  A  vigorous  controversy  arose 
between  Greeks  and  Latins  during  the  Council  of  Florence  over  the 
famous  words  of  Basil6,  to  the  effect  that  the  Spirit  has  His  place 
after  the  Son,  «because  He  holds  from  Him  His  being,  and  re- 
ceives from  Him  and  communicates  to  us,  and  depends  completely 
from  that  origin» :  nap*  aoTou  to  elvac  £%ov  xa\  nap*  aÖToü  Xapßdvov 
xai  ävayye/Jov  ijplv  xai  oXojq  ttjq  ahiac,  exeipyjQ  es'qppevov.  That  these 
are  the  genuine  original  words  of  Basil  is  proved  by  good  arguments, 
extrinsic  and  intrinsic.  But  even  were  they  the  words  of  a  forger, 
their  meaning  is  true :  and  the  entire  argument  of  Basil  presupposes 
it  as  something  logical  and  indispensable. 

10.  HOW  SHALL  WE  KNOW  GOD?  —  Eunomius  also  gave  Basil 
occasion  to  treat  of  the  manner  in  which  man  can  know  God. 
The  former  declared  that  the  nature  of  God  consisted  in  being  un- 
begotten,  dyewrjaia;  he  insisted  that  this  alone  was  expressive  of 
the  true  nature  of  God  (see  no.  4).  Basil  insists  that  our  knowledge 
of  God  is  not  immediate  but  mediate.  «We  contend  that  we  know 
our  God  from  His  works,  but  we  do  not  flatter  ourselves  that  we 
understand  His  very  nature;  for  His  works  descend  to  us  from  above, 
while  His  nature  remains  ever  inaccessible.»  7  «Creatures  show  us  the 
power  and  the  wisdom  and  the  skill  of  their  Creator,  but  they  cannot 
enable  us  to  understand  His  nature.  Indeed,  they  do  not  necessarily 
represent  the  extent  of  His  might,  for  it  may  very  well  happen  when 
the  divine  Artist  produces  a  work,  that  He  does  not  manifest  all 
His  power,  but  manifests  it  only  in  a  limited  way.  But  even  though 
He  did  display  it  to  the  full,  from  His  works  we  should  know  only 
His  omnipotence  and  not  the  nature  of  His  innermost  being.»8 
Our  human  knowledge  of  God  is  therefore  imperfect,  but  it  is  not 
a   false   knowledge   of  Him.     It  is  easy  to   see  that  the  principle  of 

1  Orat.  41,  n.  6;  43,  n.  68.  2  De  Spir.  S.,   c.    18,  n.  45.  3  Ib.,  n.  47. 

4  Migne,  PG.,  xxix.   732  737.  5  Adv.  Eun.  2,  34.  6  Ib.,  3,   1. 

7  Ep.  234,.  n.   1.  8  Adv.  Eun.  2,  32. 


§    67.      ST.    BASIL    THE    GREAT.  283 

Eunomius:  either  we  know  God  or  we  do  not  know  Him,  is  by  no 
means  a  correct  statement  of  the  question.  If  perfect  comprehension 
and  true  knowledge  were  identical,  we  should  have  no  true  know- 
ledge even  of  earthly  things  *.  Even  after  His  revelations  of  Himself 
we  know  God  only  after  the  manner  in  which  the  finite  is  able  to 
grasp  the  infinite,  coq  douarbv  yviopi^zoftai  zbv  dTretpopsyetty  ono  rou 
ptxpordrou2.  Even  in  Paradise  we  shall  not  fully  comprehend  the 
nature  of  God.  «Our  knowledge  of  the  divine  nature  is  therefore 
nothing  more  than  our  realization  of  its  incomprehensibility:  el'dyatQ 
dpa  T7JQ  Sscag  ouaiac,  rj  ata^rjatQ  aoroü  tvjq  dxaraXiq^iaQ*. 

11.  COMPLETE     EDITIONS     OF    THE    WORKS     OF     ST.     BASIL.     —     The     first 

complete  edition  of  the  original  text  was  published  at  Basle  in  1532  (re- 
printed Venice  1535,  Basle  1551),  and  Paris,  1618,  3  vols.,  reprinted  1638. 
The  Paris  edition  was  the  work  of  Fronto  Ducceus  (Fronton  Du  Due,  S.  J.) 
and  F.  Morellus ;  critical  notes  were  added  to  it  by  Fr.  Combefis,  O.  Pr., 
in  his:  Basilius  M.  ex  integro  recensitus,  Paris,  1679,  2  v0*s-  By  far  tne 
best  edition  is  that  of  the  Benedictines,  Paris,  1721  — 1730,  3  vols.  The 
first  two  volumes  were  edited  (172 1  and  1722)  by  J.  Garnier ;  after  his 
death  (June  3.,  1725)  the  third  was  edited  by  Pr.  Maran,  in  1730.  The 
Latin  version  (not  the  Greek  text)  of  this  edition  was  reprinted  at  Venice, 
1750 — 1751,  3  vols.;  at  Bergamo,  1793,  6  vols.;  at  Paris,  1835 — 1840, 
3  vols.  A  second  edition  of  the  Benedictine  text  was  published  by  L.  de 
Sinners,  Paris,  1839,  3  vols,  (editio  Parisina  altera,  emendata  et  aucta);  some 
critical  notes  to  the  first  vol.  of  this  edition  were  contributed  by  A.  Jah- 
nins,  Animadversiones  in  S.  Basilii  M.  opera,  supplementum  editionis  Gar- 
nerianae  secundae,  fasc.  I:  continens  animadversiones  in  torn,  i,  Berne, 
1842  (the  Benedictine  edition,  with  appendices,  is  found  in  Migne,  PG., 
xxix — xxxii,  Paris,  1857.  The  Migne  text  was  reprinted  at  Athens,  1900  f., 
by  Kaplanides.  The  two  spurious  Orationes  de  hominis  structura  [Migne,  PG., 
xxx.  9—61)  are  found  also  among  the  works  of  Gregory  ofNyssa  [Migne, 
PG.,  xliv.  257 — 298)  under  the  title:  Orat.  in  Scripturae  verba:  Faciamus 
hominem  ad  imaginem  et  similitudinem  nostram;  they  cannot,  however, 
belong  to  that  author.  For  the  treatise  De  consolatione  in  adversis,  see 
§  113,  3.  The  treatise  De  laude  solitariae  vitae  is  identical  with  Opusc. 
xi,  c.  19  (Laus  eremiticae  vitae)  among  the  works  of  St.  Peter  Damian, 
in  Migne,  PL.,  cxlv.  246 — 251.  The  Admonitio  ad  filium  spiritualem  is 
found  among  the  works  of  St.  Benedict  of  Aniane  (ib.,  ciii.  683—700), 
but  it  is  an  extract  from  the  Liber  exhortationis,  vulgo  de  salutaribus  do- 
cumentis  (cc.  20 — 45)  written  by  St.  Paulinus  of  Aquileja  (f  802  ;  Migne, 
1.  c,  xcix.  197 — 282);  it  is  also  found  among  the  spurious  works  of  St.  Au- 
gustine (Ib.,  xl.   1047 — 1078). 

12.  SUPPLEMENTS    TO     THE     COMPLETE     EDITIONS.    —    Chr.    Fr.    Müttkcei, 

in  Glossaria  Graeca  minora,  Moscow,  1774,  also  in  his  Ioannis  Xiphilini 
et  Basilii  M.  aliquot  orationes,  ib.,  1775,  published  three  homilies  under 
the  name  of  St.  Basil.  The  first,  De  perfectione  vitae  monachorum, 
is  identical  with  Ep.  22  (with  the  same  title)  of  our  Saint  [Migne,  PG., 
xxxii.  287—294);  the  second,  De  misericordia  et  iudicio,  is  at  least  of 
doubtful  origin;  the  third,  Homilia  consolatoria  ad  aegrotum,  is  certainly 
spurious.    The  first  and  third  are  found  in  Migne,  PG.,  xxxi.   1705 — 1722. 

1  For  proof  of  this  see  specially  Epp.  233 — 235.  2  Ep.  233,  n.  2. 

3  Ep.  234,  n.  2. 


284  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST   SECTION. 

A.  Mai  published  in  his  Nova  Patrum  Bibl.,  Rome,  1845,  *"•  Part  %  449; 
part  II,  281 — 282,  an  Epistola  ad  Urbicium  monachum  de  continentia, 
that  had  escaped  the  Benedictines  {Migne,  PG.,  xxxii.  11 09 — 11 12),  also 
(ib.,  1853,  vi,  part  II,  584)  a  Sermo  de  sacerdotum  instructione  {Migne, 
PG.,  xxxi.  1685 — 1688).  An  exposition  of  the  Symbolum  Nicaenum  wrongly 
attributed  to  our  Saint,  was  published  by  C.  P.  Caspari,  Ungedruckte,  un- 
beachtete und  wenig  beachtete  Quellen  zur  Geschichte  des  Taufsymbols  und 
der  Glaubensregel,  Christiania,  1869,  ii.  4 — 7;  cf.  13 — 30;  it  has  not  «the 
slightest  resemblance»,  says  Caspari  (p.  27),  to  the  symbol  found  in  Basil's 
treatise  rcept  itwretoc  (no.  4,  Migne,  PG.,  xxxi.  685  —  688).  Extracts  from  some 
letters  of  Basil,  according  to  recently  discovered  papyri  codices,  were  published 
by  H.  Landwehr ,  in  Griechische  Handschriften  aus  Fayyüm:  Philologus 
(1884),  xliii.  110 — 136;  see  ib.  (1885),  xliv.  19 — 21.  Cardinal  Pitra  (Ana- 
lecta  sacra  et  classica,  Paris,  1888,  part  I)  published  as  writings  of  Basil 
certain  Fragmenta  in  Psalmos  (pp.  76—103),  Ascetica  (pp.  104 — 108),  and 
Epitimia  (pp.   108 — no). 

13.     SEPARATE    EDITIONS    AND    SPECIAL    RESEARCHES.    —    S.  BasilÜ    Caesa- 

reae  Cappad.  archiep.  et  S.  Gregorii  Theol.  vulgo  Nazianz.  archiepisc. 
Constantinop.  opera  dogmatica  selecta  (S.  Bas.  Adv.  Eun.  i — iii,  and  De 
Spir.  Sancto).  Edenda  curavit  J.  D.  H.  Goldhorn ,  Leipzig,  1854  (Bibl. 
Patrum  graec.  dogmatica.  Edendam  curavit  J.  C.  Thilo,  vol.  ii).  The 
books  Adv.  Eun.  iv — v  are  also  found  in  y.  Dräseke ,  Apollinarios  von 
Laodicea,  Leipzig,  1892,  pp.  205 — 251,  but  these  two  books  are,  however, 
by  no  means  the  work  of  Apollinaris  of  Laodicaea,  as  Dräseke  maintains 
(§  61,  4)  but  very  probably  the  work  of  Didymus  the  Blind,  see  v.  Funk, 
Kirchengeschichtl.  Abhandlungen  und  Untersuchungen  (1899),  ii.  291 — 329, 
and  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1901),  Ixxxiii.  113 — 116.  A  new  edition  of  De 
Spiritu  Sancto  was  brought  out  by  C.  F.  H.  yohnston,  Oxford,  1892.  The 
same  work  is  printed  (Latin  text)  in  H.  Hurler,  SS.  Patr.  opusc.  selecta 
(series  I),  xxxi.  C.  A.  F.  Fremion  published  (Paris,  18 19)  an  excellent  edition 
(with  a  French  version)  of  the  discourse  or  treatise,  On  the  reading  of  pagan 
authors  (reprinted  in  Migne,  PG.,  xxxi.  563 — 590;  cf.  1831— .1844).  Recent 
annotated  editions  of  the  same  work  were  brought  out  by  F.  Sommer, 
Paris,  1894,  and  y.  Bach,  Münster,  1900;  cf.  y.  Clericus ,  S.  Basilii  M. 
oratio  ad  iuvenes  de  libris  profanis  cum  fructu  legendis.  Textum  editionis 
monachorum  O.  S.  B.  ad  ms.  cod.  Taurinensem  recensuit,  varus  lectionibus 
instruxit,  interpretationem  italicam  et  notas  adiecit,  Turin,  1870.  For  the 
chronology  of  the  letters  of  St.  Basil  see  V.  Frnst,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  Kirchen- 
gesch.  (1895 — 1896),  xvi.  626 — 664,  and  Fr.  Loofs,  Eustathius  von  Sebaste 
und  die  Chronologie  der  Basiliusbriefe ,  Halle,  1898.  y.  Dräseke  under- 
took, in  Zeitschr.  f.  Kirchengesch.  (1885 — 1886),  viii.  85 — 123,  the  defence 
of  the  genuineness  of  the  letters  361 — 364  (correspondence  of  St.  Basil 
with  Apollinaris  of  Laodicea).  The  pretended  Ep.  16  Adv.  Eunomium 
haereticum  {Migne,  PG.,  xxxii.  280 — 281)  is  not  a  letter,  nor  it  is  the  work 
of  Basil,  but  a  chapter  from  the  tenth  book  of  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  Contra 
Eunomium;  cf.  Fr,  Diekamp,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1895),  lxxvii.  277  to 
285,  also  E.  Mercati,  Varia  sacra  (Testi  e  Studi),  Rome,  1903,  xi.  53 
to  56;  for  a  brief  letter  of  Basil  in  reply  to  one  of  Gregory  of  Nazianzus 
ib.  (pp.  57 — 70);  letter  189  of  Basil  is  adjudged  to  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  and 
is  re-edited  (pp.  71 — 82)  with  the  addition  of  hitherto  unknown  fragments. 
Recent  editions  of  the  so-called  Liturgy  of  St.  Basil  are  to  be  found  in 
H.  A.  Daniel,  Codex  liturgicus  ecclesiae  orientalis  (Cod.  lit.  eccl.  univ.  iv), 
Leipzig,  1853,  pp.  421 — 438;  CA.  Swainson,  The  Greek  Liturgies  chiefly 
from  original  authorities,  Cambridge,  1884,  pp.  75  —  87  149 — 171;  and 
F.  F.  Brightman,  Liturgies  Eastern  and  Western,    Oxford,   1896,  i.     Con- 


§    67.      ST.    BASIL   THE    GREAT.  285 

cerning  this  liturgy  the  reader  may  consult  F.  Probst,  Liturgie  des  4.  Jahr- 
hunderts und  deren  Reform,  Münster,  1893,  PP-  37  7  ~ 412-  A.  Vandepitte, 
Saint  Basile  et  l'origine  de  Complies,  in  Revue  Augustinienne  (1903), 
pp.  258 — 260.  Renz ,  Die  Geschichte  des  Messopferbegriffs,  Freising, 
1901,  i.  340—376:  Die  drei  grossen  Kappadozier;  603 — 619:  Die  byzan- 
tinische Liturgie. 

14.  versions.  —  Rufinus  of  Aquileja  tells  us  (Hist,  eccl.,  ii.  9)  that 
he  translated  into  Latin  about  ten  discourses  of  St.  Basil  and  as  many  of 
St.  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  (denas  ferme  singulorum  oratiunculas).  The  Bene- 
dictine edition  ot  Basil's  works  contains  (Migne,  PG. ,  xxxi.  1723 — 1794) 
eight  homilies  in  the  version  of  Rufinus ;  the  seventh,  however,  is  only  the 
Ep.  S.  Basilii  46  ad  virginem  lapsam  (ib.,  xxxii.  369—382).  The  two 
monastic  rules  of  Basil  (instituta  monachorum ,  Hist.  eccl. ,  ii.  9),  were 
also  translated  by  Rufinus  i.  e.  he  made  extracts  from  them  which  he 
embodied  in  one  rule  composed  of  203  questions  and  answers.  For  the 
editions  of  this  rule  that  the  reader  will  not  find  in  Migne  (PG. ,  xxix  to 
xxxii,  opp.  S.  Basilii),  nor  among  the  works  of  Rufinus  (ib.,  PL.,  xxi.)  see 
v.  Schoenemann,  Bibl.  hist.-lit.  Patrum  lat.  i.  619—622  (cf.  Migne,  PL.,  xxi. 
35 — 37).  The  nine  homilies  on  the  Hexaemeron  were  translated  into  Latin 
(about  440)  by  a  certain  Eustathius  Afer  for  the  deaconness  Syncletica 
(Migne,  PG.,  xxx.  86q — 968).  An  ancient  Latin  version  of  the  commen- 
tary on  Isaias  is  found  in  Bibliotheca  Casinensis  (1880),  iv.  390 — 424. 
An  Armenian  version  of  the  homilies  appeared  at  Venice  in  1830. 
There  is  also  an  Armenian  version  of  the  thirteenth  of  the  «twenty-four 
homilies»  (see  no.  7)  known  as  Exhortatoria  ad  s.  baptismal  jf.  B.  Aucher, 
Severiani  s.  Seberiani  Gabalorum  episc.  Emesensis  homiliae,  Venice,  1827, 
pp.  370—401.  J.  G.  Krabinge r ,  Basilius  d.  Gr.  auserlesene  Homilien. 
Aus  dem  Griechischen  übersetzt  und  erläutert,  Landshut,  1839  (fourteen 
homilies  from  the  Benedictine  text,  corrected  from  other  manuscripts). 
V.  Gröne,  Ausgewählte  Schriften  des  hl.  Basilius  d.  Gr.,  Bischofs  von  Cä- 
sarea  und  Kirchenlehrers,  nach  dem  Urtext  übersetzt,  Kempten,  1875 — 1881, 
3  vols.  (Bibl.  der  Kirchenväter);  the  first  volume  contains  the  (9)  homilies 
on  the  Hexaemeron  and  (21)  selected  discourses,  the  second  the  three 
treatises  introductory  to  the  Ascetica  and  the  two  Rules,  and  the  third 
(97)  selected  letters.  Selected  discourses  of  St.  Basil  were  also  translated 
into  German  by  F.  J.  Winter,  in  G.  Leonhardi ,  Die  Predigt  der  Kirche, 
Leipzig,  1892,  xix.  English  translations  of  some  of  the  works  of  St.  Basil 
are  found  in  A  Select  Library  of  Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers  of  the 
Christian  Church,  series  II,  New  York,   1895,  vm- 

15.  works  on  saint  basil.  —  A.  Rocchi  has  made  known  two  ancient 
Greek  hymns  in  honor  of  St.  Basil  j  see  vol.  x  (Cozza-Luzi),  of  continuation 
of  Mai's  Nova  Patrum  Bibliotheca,  Rome,  1905,  part  II,  pp.  177  —  204. 
C.  R.  W.  Klose,  Ein  Beitrag  zur  Kirchengeschichte.  Basilius  d.  Gr.  nach 
seinem  Leben  und  seiner  Lehre,  Stralsund,  1835.  7-  Schermann,  Die 
Gottheit  des  Heiligen  Geistes  nach  den  griechischen  Vätern  des  4.  Jahr- 
hunderts, in  Strassburger  Theol.  Studien,  iv.  4—5.  J.  Habert  (1647), 
Theologiae  Graecorum  Patrum  vindicatae  circa  universam  materiam  gra- 
tiae  libri  tres,  reprinted,  Würzburg,  1863.  Fr.  Böhringer ,  Die  Kirche 
Christi  und  ihre  Zeugen,  oder  die  Kirchengeschichte  in  Biographien, 
2.  ed.,  vii:  Die  drei  Kappadozier,  i.  Basilius  von  Cäsarea,  Stuttgart,  1875. 
F.  Fialon,  Etude  historique  et  litteraire  sur  St.  Basile,  suivie  de  l'Hexa- 
emeron,  traduit  en  franc,  ais,  Paris,  1869.  F.  Allard,  S.  Basile,  Paris,  1899 
(Les  Saints).  Id. ,  Diet,  de  la  Theologie  Catholique,  Paris,  1905,  ii. 
c.  441 — 455:  Basile.  H.  Weiss,  Die  grossen  Kappadozier  Basilius,  Gregor 
von  Nazianz   und  Gregor  von  Nyssa  als  Exegeten.     Ein   Beitrag   zur  Ge- 


286  SECOND    PERIOD.      FIRST    SECTION. 

schichte  der  Exegese,  Brunsberg,  1872.  E.  Scholl,  Die  Lehre  des  hl.  Ba- 
silius von  der  Gnade,  Freiburg,  1881.  A.  Kranich,  Der  hl.  Basilius  in 
seiner  Stellung  zum  «Filioque»,  Brunsberg,  1882.  Id.,  Die  Aszetik  in  ihrer 
dogmatischen  Grundlage  bei  Basilius  d.  Gr.,  Paderborn,  1896.  M.  Berger, 
Die  Schöpfungslehre  des  hl.  Basilius  d.  Gr.  (2  Progr.),  Rosenheim,  1897  to 
1898.  Funk,  Kirchengeschichtl.  Abhandlungen  und  Untersuchungen  (1899), 
ii.  251 — 253:  «Ein  angebliches  Wort  Basilius'  d.  Gr.  über  die  Bilder- 
verehrung». K.  Unter  stein,  Die  natürliche  Gotteserkenntnis  nach  der  Lehre 
der  kappadozischen  Kirchenväter  Basilius,  Gregor  von  Nazianz  und  Gregor 
von  Nyssa  (Progr.),  Strassburg,  1903.  H.  Weiss,  Die  Erziehungslehre  der 
drei  Kappadozier.  Ein  Beitrag  zur  patristischen  Pädagogik,  in  Strassburger 
Theol.  Studien,  Freiburg,  Z903,  v.  3 — 4.  Duchesne,  Histoire  ancienne  de 
l'Eglise,  2.  ed.,  Paris,   1906,  ii.  c.  xi:  Basile  de  Cesaree. 

16.    EUSTATHIUS    OF    SEBASTE.       AMPHILOCHIUS    OF   ICONIUM.  —  Eustathius 

of  Sebaste  (see  no.  3)  circulated  a  pretended  letter  of  St.  Basil  to  Apol- 
linaris  of  Laodicea,  in  which  heretical  doctrines  were  set  forth.  The  letter 
was  published  by  B.  Sebastiani,  Rome,  1796.  Cf.  Fr.  Loofs,  Eustathius 
von  Sebaste,  Halle,  1898.  —  St.  Amphilochius  (see  no.  7),  who  was  conse- 
crated bishop  of  Iconium  in  374  and  metropolitan  of  Lycaonia  (f  after  394), 
was  a  prominent  ecclesiastical  figure  in  the  controversies  of  his  time.  He 
is  quoted  as  an  ecclesiastical  writer  by  later  writers  and  by  councils,  but 
the  works  current  under  his  name  (homiliae,  epistola  iambica  ad  Seleucum  etc.) 
are  probably  all  spurious,  with  the  exception  of  an  excellent  synodal  letter 
on  the  true  divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  written  in  377  in  the  name  of  a 
synod  of  his  suffragans  of  Lycaonia,  apparently  to  the  bishops  of  Lycia. 
The  works  of  Amphilochius,  spurious  and  authentic,  are  found  in  Gallandi, 
Bibl.  vet.  Patr.,  vi.  457 — 514  (Migne,  PG.,  xxxix.  13 — 130).  The  Epistola 
synodalis  is  also  in  J.  D.  H.  Goldhorn ,  S.  Basilii  opp.  dogm.  sei., 
Leipzig,  1854,  pp.  630—635;  cf.  Fe  ssler- Jungmann,  Institt.  Patrol.,  i.  600 
to  604.  A  hitherto  unedited  homily  on  the  barren  trees  was  published 
lately  by  B.  Z.,  Amphilochios  von  Ikonion.  Rede  über  die  unfruchtbaren 
Bäume,  zum  erstenmal  herausgegeben,  Jurjew  in  Livland,  1901.  K.  Holl, 
Amphilochius  von  Ikonium  in  seinem  Verhältnis  zu  den  grossen  Kappa- 
doziern,  Tübingen,   1904. 

§  68.    St.  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  the  Theologian. 

I .  GREGORY,  BEFORE  ORDINATION  TO  THE  PRIESTHOOD.  —  Gregory 
of  Nazianzus  was  born  about  330,  a  little  before  Basil  the  Great,  on 
the  estate  of  Arianzum  near  Nazianzus,  a  city  of  south-western  Cappa- 
docia.  He  was  like  Basil  educated  in  a  spirit  of  Christian  piety. 
The  latter  had  been  guided  in  the  path  of  virtue  by  his  holy 
grandmother  Macrina;  similarly,  Gregory  owed  to  his  holy  mother 
Nonna  the  first  impulse  to  a  religious  life.  He  was  sent  as  a  youth 
to  the  most  celebrated  schools  of  his  time,  to  Caesarea  in  Cappa- 
docia  where  he  became  acquainted  with  Basil,  to  Caesarea  in  Pale- 
stine, also  to  Alexandria  and  Athens,  where  his  former  acquaintance 
with  Basil  grew  into  the  intimate  attachment  that  he  still  cherished 
with  all  the  enthusiasm  of  boyhood  when  in  381  he  was  called  on 
to  deliver  the  funeral  oration  over  the  body  of  his  friend  K  About 
the  year  360  he  left  Athens,  was  baptized  at  home,  and  lived  partly 

1  Orat.  43,  in  laudem  Basilii  M. 


§    68.      ST.    GREGORY    OF    NAZIANZUS,    THE    THEOLOGIAN.  287 

at  Arianzum  and  partly  in  monastic  retirement  with  Basil  in  Pontus. 
This  life  seemed  to  him  the  supreme  ideal,  even  while  yet  a  student 
at  Athens.  At  Arianzum,  in  the  bosom  of  his  family,  he  continued 
to  cherish  his  early  longings  for  a  life  dedicated  in  solitude  to  the 
service  of  God.  In  360  or  361,  he  appeared  publicly  for  the  first 
time,  and  in  the  quality  of  peacemaker.  His  father  Gregory  was 
bishop  of  Nazianzus,  and  as  such  had  signed  the  semiarian  formula 
of  Rimini  (359)  giving  thereby  grave  scandal  to  the  monks  of  Na- 
zianzus who  were  firm  adherents  to  the  Nicene  faith.  Gregory 
caused  his  father  to  make  in  public  an  entirely  orthodox  profession 
of  faith,  and  thereby  appeased  the  monks  (others  place  these  events 
in  363  and  364). 

2.  GREGORY  AS  PRIEST  AND  BISHOP.  —  It  was  probably  in  361, 
at  Christmas,  that  Gregory  was  ordained  a  priest,  against  his  will, 
and  by  his  father,  in  deference  to  the  insistence  of  the  people  of 
Nazianzus.  In  his  displeasure  at  the  violence  done  him,  he  fled  to  his 
friend  in  Pontus,  but  soon  returned,  probably  by  Easter  362,  and 
continued  thenceforth  to  aid  his  father  in  the  administration  of  the 
diocese.  When  Basil  was  engaged  in  his  controversy  with  Anthimus, 
bishop  of  Tyana  (§  6j,  3),  he  established  several  new  sees  in  the 
smaller  cities  of  Cappadocia,  and  placed  his  friend  Gregory  over  one 
of  them.  This  was  Sasima,  a  poor  and  insignificant  place  in  the  terri- 
tory to  which  Anthimus  was  laying  claim  as  metropolitan.  It  was  only 
after  much  resistance  that  Gregory  was  consecrated  bishop  by  Basil  at 
Nazianzus,  but  he  soon  withdrew  into  solitude;  indeed,  it  is  very  doubt- 
ful whether  he  ever  took  possession  of  the  see  of  Sasima.  Yielding 
only  the  urgent  requests  of  his  father  he  returned  to  Nazianzus  in  372, 
and  took  up  the  burden  of  diocesan  administration  again.  His  father 
died  early  in  374,  and  soon  afterwards  his  mother  breathed  her  last. 
About  369  his  younger  brother  Caesarius  and  his  sister  Gorgonia  had 
passed  away.  In  375  Gregory  who  also  had  to  endure  great  bodily 
sufferings  laid  down  his  charge  as  administrator  of  Nazianzus  and 
entered  upon  a  life  of  retirement  and  contemplation  at  Seleucia  in 
Isauria.  The  sad  news  of  the  death  of  his  friend  Basil  reached  him 
here  (379)  and  strengthened  him  in  his  resolution  utterly  to  renounce 
all  secular  interests. 

3.  GREGORY  AT  CONSTANTINOPLE.  —  He  was  not,  however,  to  enjoy 
the  repose  he  so  much  desired.  During  the  reign  of  Valens,  the 
orthodox  Catholics  of  Constantinople  had  dwindled  to  an  almost  im- 
perceptible nucleus.  When,  however,  Theodosius  mounted  the  imperial 
throne  (Jan.  19.,  379),  a  happier  future  seemed  to  dawn  for  them,  and 
they  turned  to  Gregory  with  an  urgent  prayer  to  come  to  their  aid 
and  to  reorganize  the  affairs  of  their  church;  He  came  (379)  to  the 
Capital  of  the  East  and  commenced  there  a  beneficent  revival  of  re- 
ligion.    The  various  Arian  parties  put  obstacles  in  his  way  and  even 


288  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

fomented  discord  in  the  ranks  of  the  orthodox;  more  than  once  the 
life  of  Gregory  was  imperilled.  His  holy  zeal  knew  no  fear,  and  his 
marvellous  eloquence  won  all  hearts.  His  fame  was  so  great  that 
St.  Jerome,  though  a  man  of  mature  age,  was  not  ashamed  to  betake 
himself  to  Constantinople  in  order  to  listen  to  the  preaching  of  Gregory 
and  to  profit  by  his  special  instruction  in  the  interpretation  of  the 
Scriptures.  The  cathedral  of  the  city  had  hitherto  been  held  by  the 
Arians,  but  when  Theodosius  made  his  triumphal  entry  (Dec.  24.,  380) 
he  caused  it,  probably  the  church  of  the  Apostles,  to  be  restored 
to  the  Catholics.  The  latter  now  insisted  on  having  Gregory  as 
their  bishop,  but  he  resisted  with  stubbornness  until  the  meeting  of 
the  Second  Ecumenical  Council  convoked  by  Theodosius  and  opened 
in  May  381.  The  fathers  declared  him  bishop  of  the  city.  It  was 
with  deep  sorrow  that  he  beheld  the  failure  of  his  efforts  to  end 
the  Meletian  schism  at  Antioch,  owing  chiefly  to  the  opposition  of 
the  younger  members  of  the  synod.  When,  therefore,  the  bishops  of 
Egypt  and  Macedonia  disputed  the  regularity  of  his  nomination  to 
the  see  of  Constantinople,  on  the  ground  that  it  had  been  made 
before  their  arrival,  he  laid  down  the  burden  and  dignity.  In  a 
splendid  discourse  delivered  in  the  Cathedral  before  the  episcopal 
assembly  he  bade  them  adieu  and  departed,  probably  in  June  381. 
He  retired  to  Nazianzus,  and  guided  and  protected  the  community 
of  that  city  which  had  lost  in  his  father  its  bishop,  until,  about  383, 
according  to  the  desire  of  Gregory,  it  received  in  Eulalius  a  new 
pastor.  Thenceforth  he  lived  at  Arianzum,  devoted  to  his  ascetical 
practices  and  his  books.  It  was  here,  at  his  birthplace,  that  he 
died,  probably  in  389  or  390. 

4.  THE  ORATIONS  OF  GREGORY.  —  His  writings  fall  naturally  into 
three  groups:  Orations,  Letters,  and  Poems.  The  45  Orations  are 
the  most  important1;  among  them  those  numbered  27 — 31  have 
always  been  considered  the  most  perfect  of  his  compositions.  He  de- 
signated them  himself2  as  oc  tTjQ  tteoAoyiac  h'rfot,  and  it  is  to  them 
that  he  owes  the  surname  of  «the  theologian».  They  were  delivered 
at  Constantinople  in  defence  of  the  ecclesiastical  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
and  against  the  Macedonians  and  Eunomians.  After  treating  in  the 
first  oration  certain  preliminary  questions  he  proceeds  in  the  second 
to  treat  of  the  existence,  nature,  and  attributes  of  God,  in  so  far  as 
the  human  intellect  can  grasp  them  and  human  speech  make  them 
plain.  In  the  third  he  demonstrates  the  unity  of  nature  in  the  three 
Divine  Persons,  more  particularly  the  divinity  of  the  Son,  while  in 
the  fourth  he  replies  to  the  objections  of  the  Arians  against  the  di- 
vinity of  the  Son,  by  interpreting  correctly  the  scriptural  passages 
abused  by  them.    The  fifth  oration  is  devoted  to  a  refutation  of  the 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xxxv.  xxxvi.  2  Orat.  28,  n.    1. 


§    68.      ST.    GREGORY    OF    NAZIANZUS,    THE    THEOLOGIAN.  289 

objections  against  the  divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  many  ways  similar 
are  the  orations  no.  20  «on  the  order  and  establishment  of  bishops»  and 
no.  32  «on  moderation  and  purpose  in  controversies»,  both  of  which 
were  delivered  at  Constantinople.  The  two  invectives  (orrjAizeortxoi) 
against  the  emperor  Julian  (no.  4  5)  were  composed  after  that  emperor's 
death  (June  26.,  363)  and  probably  were  never  delivered  in  public.  In 
these  discourses  he  intended  to  exhibit  the  person  of  the  apostate, 
whom  he  had  personally  known  at  Athens,  to  the  general  contempt  of 
his  contemporaries  and  of  posterity.  Nevertheless,  it  is  heat  of  passion 
that  glows  in  them  rather  than  true  Christian  enthusiasm.  The  oration 
no.  2  in  which  he  explains  and  defends  his  flight  after  his  ordination 
to  the  priesthood  (diToAoyrjTtxbQ  tTjq  scq  tov  IIoutou  <p'jpjg  evexev)  is  too 
long  to  have  ever  been  delivered  in  its  present  form.  Possibly  he  may 
have  preached  in  362  the  first  or  apologetic  part  of  the  discourse, 
and  enlarged  it,  at  a»  later  date,  until  it  became  the  treatise  that  we 
now  possess  on  the  excellence  of  the  ecclesiastical  state.  It  is  the 
model  and  the  source  of  the  six  books  of  Chrysostom's  7tep\  tepwaovTjQ 
(§  74,  8).  The  other  orations  of  Gregory  are  devoted  to  some 
ecclesiastical  feast,  some  article  of  faith  or  duty  of  Christians,  the 
commemoration  of  celebrated  martyrs,  of  relatives  and  friends,  or 
some  important  event  of  his  own  life.  Among  the  commentators  of 
his  discourses  the  most  famous  is  Elias  of  Crete,  who  probably  lived 
in  the  tenth  century. 

5.  GREGORY'S  LETTERS  AND  POEMS.  —  At  the  request  of  his 
youthful  relative,  Nicobulus,  our  Saint  made  a  collection  of  the  greater 
part  of  his  letters1.  Most  of  the  letters  that  have  reached  us  —  243 
in  the  Benedictine  edition  —  date  from  the  period  of  his  final  retirement 
at  Arianzum  (383—389),  and  appertain  to  personal  occurrences  in  his 
life,  or  in  those  of  his  friends  and  relatives;  only  a  few  deal  with 
theological  questions.  The  243 d  letter,  often  referred  to  in  later  times 
(irpbg  Eödypiov  povayhv  mpl  &sot7}toq)2  undertakes  to  present,  with 
the  aid  of  comparisons,  an  idea  of  the  relation  of  the  Son  and  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  the  Father,  within  the  unity  of  the  divine  nature, 
that  itself  suffers  no  separation  by  reason  of  such  distinctions.  As 
works  of  literary  art,  the  letters  of  Gregory  are  admirable.  They  are 
quite  laconic  and  short,  replete  with  «thoughts»  and  «points»,  fre- 
quently written  with  a  painstaking  industry  that  is  evident,  and  often 
meant  for  an  audience  beyond  the  immediate  recipient.  —  Most  of  his 
poems  were  composed  within  the  same  period  as  the  letters.  He 
sought  to  make  headway,  by  means  of  poetical  propaganda,  against 
certain  heresies,  particularly  that  of  Apollinaris,  which  did  not  hesitate 
to  clothe  their  teachings  in  poetical  garb  in  order  to  secure  the  ad- 
hesion of  the  people.     Moreover,    his   poems  were  meant  to  supply 

1  Ep.   52   53;  Migne,  PG.,  xxxvii.    108 — 109. 

2  Migne,  PG.,  xlvi.   1101  —  1 108,  inter  opp.  S.  Greg.  Nyss. ;  cf.  xxxvii.  383. 
Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  19 


29O  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

in  some  measure  the  loss  of  the  pagan  writings  that  were  only  too 
often  open  sources  of  immorality  for  the  Christian  reader.  In  the 
poem  entitled  In  snos  versus  \  Gregory  explains  in  detail  the  reasons 
which  moved  him  in  his  old  age  to  abandon  the  use  of  prose  for 
metre.  His  poetry,  however,  is  nothing  more  than  versified  prose, 
rather  weak  also  and  prolix.  There  is  an  occasional  spark  of  poetic 
fire  in  his  elegiac  and  satirical  verses;  otherwise,  he  is  at  his  best 
in  gnomic  maxims  and  moral  aphorisms,  and  in  compact  didactic 
instructions  replete  with  Christian  wisdom.  The  longest  (1949  w.)  of  his 
poems  is  entitled  De  vita  sua  2 ;  it  is  also  the  principal  historical  source 
for  the  history  of  our  Saint.  The  metrical  form  of  his  poems  is  very 
manifold,  and  in  particular  he  exhibits  a  perfect  mastery  of  trimeter, 
hexameter,  pentameter,  iambic  and  anacreontic  verse.  Occasionally 
he  abandons  the  quantitative  metre,  as  in  the  rhythmic  Hymnus 
vespertinus  and  the  Exhortatio  ad  virgines8.  The  tragedy  Christus 
patiens^  is  a  spurious  work,  written  at  a  much  later  date,  probably 
in  the  eleventh  or  twelfth  century.  Cosmas  the  Singer  (§  105,  6) 
composed  scholia  on  the  poems  of  Gregory.  The  Greek  Anthology 
includes  some  epigrams  of  Gregory  on  Basil,  Nonna,  Caesarius  and 
others  5. 

6.  CHARACTER  OF  GREGORY.  —  A  certain  irresoluteness  appears 
in  the  whole  life  of  Gregory;  he  yearns  for  solitude  and  quiet  con- 
templation, and  yet  the  prayers  of  his  friends  and  his  own  sense  of 
duty  call  him  back  to  the  active  life,  to  a  share  in  the  movements 
and  conflicts  of  his  time.  In  this  sphere  he  owes  his  success  chiefly 
to  his  powerful  eloquence.  Though  he  is  not  a  great  ecclesiastical 
ruler  like  his  friend  Basil,  he  surpasses  him  in  his  command  of  the 
resources  of  persuasive  rhetoric.  He  is  beyond  doubt  one  of  the 
greatest  orators  of  Christian  antiquity,  and  that  in  spite  of  the  tribute 
he  had  to  pay  to  the  taste  of  his  own  time  which  demanded  a  florid 
and  grandiloquent  style.  In  his  didactic  discourses  he  appears  as  an 
exponent  and  defender  of  the  tradition  of  Christian  faith.  For  him 
it  is  a  matter  of  pride  that  he  holds,  unmodified  and  unadapted  to 
the  changing  circumstances  of  his  day,  the  faith  that  he  has  learned 
from  the  Scriptures  and  the  holy  fathers :  xara  Trdura  xaipbv  bpoicDQ, 
6d  ouppopyoupevoc,  tchq  xatpolq^ :  elsewhere  he  insists  that  he  teaches 
(especially  concerning  the  Trinity)  after  the  manner  of  (Galilaean) 
fishermen,  and  not  after  the  manner  of  Aristotle :  äXisunxaJg,  aXX"  oux 
'AptaroreXixcuQ 7.  Gregory  is  not  a  profound  thinker  like  his  namesake 
of  Nyssa ;  independent  speculation  was  foreign  to  his  genius.  Yet  it 
may  be  said  of  him  that  he  is  in  a  higher  degree  than  his  famous 
contemporary  and  associate,  the  representative   of  the  common  faith 

1  Poem,  ii,    1,   39;  Migne,  PG.,  xxxvii.    1329 — 1336.  2  Ib.,  ii,    1,    11. 

3  Ib.,  i,   1,   32  and  2,   3.  4  Migne,  PG.,  xxxviii.    133 — 338. 

5  Anthologia  Palatina  viii.  6  Or.  33,  n.    15.  7  Or.   23,   n.    12. 


§    68.      ST.    GREGORY    OF   NAZIANZUS,    THE   THEOLOGIAN.  29 1 

of  the  Greek  Church  toward  the  end  of  the  fourth  century.  As  early 
as  the  following  century  his  dogmatic  teaching  was  looked  on  with 
respect  as  a  rule  of  Christian  faith.  Manifestum  namque  indicium 
est  non  esse  rectae  fidei  kontinent  qui  in  fide  Gregorio  non  concordat. 
says  Rufinus  of  Aquileja  in  the  preface  to  his  Latin  translation  of 
some  of  Gregory's  orations  *.  Later  theological  writers  among  the 
Greeks,  e.  g.  St.  John  Damascene,  quoted  with  special  satisfaction 
the  works  of  «the  Theologian». 

7.  HIS  TRINITARIAN  DOCTRINE.  —  Gregory's  exposition  of  the 
ecclesiastical  teaching  concerning  the  Trinity  deserves  a  careful  study. 
His  own  mental  tendency  and  a  certain  intimate  relish,  not  less  than 
the  immediate  needs  of  the  faithful ,  led  him  to  devote  almost  his 
whole  life  to  the  defence  and  illustration  of  that  doctrine.  He  returns 
to  the  theme  in  nearly  every  discourse.  The  following  passage 2 
presents  an  accurate  summary  of  his  belief  in  the  Trinity:  «I  give  thee 
this  profession  of  faith  as  a  life-long  guide  and  protector:  One  sole 
divinity  and  one  power,  which  exists  in  three  together  and  includes 
in  itself  the  three  distinct,  not  differing  in  substance  or  nature,  neither 
increased  by  addition  nor  lessened  by  subtraction,  in  every  respect 
equal,  absolutely  one,  even  as  the  single  and  undivided  beauty  and 
grandeur  of  the  firmament,  an  infinite  unity  of  three  infinite  persons, 
each  being  God  as  considered  apart,  God  the  Father  and  God  the  Son 
and  God  the  Holy  Ghost,  each  being  distinct  by  His  personal  property 
[proprietas];  all  three  together  being  God:  that  on  account  of  identity 
in  nature  (bpoooownqQ),  this  on  account  of  one  sovereignty  fjuouap^caj. 
When  in  my  mind  I  consider  one,  I  am  illuminated  round  about  by  the 
three,  and  scarcely  have  I  distinguished  the  three  when  I  am  again  led 
back  to  their  unity.  When  I  look  upon  one  of  the  three,  I  hold  it  to 
be  the  whole ;  my  eye  is  overcome  by  the  excess  of  light  whose  fulness 
escapes  my  powers.  I  am  unable  so  to  grasp  the  grandeur  of  this 
one,  as  to  accord  the  plentitude  (of  vision)  to  that  which  remains; 
when,  however,  I  comprehend  all  three  in  my  contemplation,  I  see 
but  one  ray,  and  am  unable  to  distinguish  or  to  measure  the  united 
light.»  —  With  regard  to  the  divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  while  he 
defended  the  reserve  and  the  prudence  of  Basil  in  setting  forth  this 
truth  (§  67,  9),  he  was  himself  less  cautious.  About  372  he  asks 
himself  publicly3:  «How  long  must  we  keep  our  light  under  the 
bushel  and  defraud  others  of  the  perfect  divinity  (of  the  Holy  Spirit)  ? 
The  light  should  rather  be  placed  on  the  candlestick  that  it  may 
shine  through  all  the  churches,  and  in  every  mind,  and  over  the  whole 
earth,  no  longer  as  in  an  image  and  in  shadowy  outline  presented  to 
the  intellect,  but  clearly  set  forth.»4  In  his  panegyric  on  his  friend 
Basil 5  he  relates  how  amid  the  cruel  pressure  of  the  times  (too  xaipoo 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xxxvi.   736.  2  Or.  40,  n.  41.  3  Or.    12,  n.  6. 

4  Cf.  Ep.   58.  5  Or.  43,   n.  69. 

19* 


292  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

arevoywpouvrog  yjuag)  Basil  had  adopted  for  himself,  in  view  of  his 
exposed  position,  a  prudent  reserve  (ttjv  oixovofdav),  while  to  the  much 
less  imperilled  Gregory  he  left  full  freedom  of  speech  (ttjv  7iappy]aiav). 
—  The  filioque  is  not  found  in  the  writings  of  Gregory  as  clearly 
and  openly  as  in  those  of  Basil.  He  takes  it,  however,  for  re- 
cognized and  granted,  that  the  Son  also  is  principle  or  origin  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  When  he  says1  in  his  discourse  before  the  Second 
Ecumenical  Council  (381)  that  the  Father  is  dvapyog,  the  Son  dp$ 
and  the  Holy  Spirit  to  fiera  tyjq  dpyrjg,  he  implicitly  affirms  between 
Holy  Spirit  and  Son  the  mutual  relation  of  the  Proceeding  and  of  the 
Principle  from  Whom  He  proceeds.  Moreover,  he  expressly  says  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  to  ig  dfupolv  oüvrjppevov2  or  «composed  of  both», 
i.  e.  he  proceeds  equally  from  the  Father  and  the  Son3.  The  poem 
entitled  Praecepta  ad  virgines  ends  with  these  words:  One  God, 
from  the  Begetter  through  the  Son,  to  the  great  Spirit  (elg  Sebg  ex 
jEvirao  di  meog  eg  peya  izveupa  —  the  so-called  xivrjoig  Trjg  povdoog 
elg  rpiddaj,  since  the  perfect  divinity  subsists  in  perfect  persons.» 

8.  complete  editions.  —  The  most  valuable  of  the  early  editions  is 
that  of  y.  Billius  and  F.  Morellus ,  Paris,  1609 — 1611,  2  vols.,  reprinted 
at  Paris  in  1630  and  at  Cologne  (Leipzig)  in  1690.  The  best  edition  is 
that  of  the  Benedictines.  Its  history  is  rather  unique.  The  first  volume 
containing  all  the  orations  was  delayed  by  the  death  of  several  co-workers, 
and  was  published  by  Ph.  Clemencet,  Paris,  1778.  The  second  volume  was 
delayed  by  the  French  Revolution  and  appeared  as  late  as  1840,  post 
operam  et  Studium  monachorum  O.  S.  B.  edente  et  accurante  D.  A.  B. 
Caillau.  It  contains  the  complete  collection  of  the  poems  and  letters  of 
Gregory.  In  the  edition  of  Billius  and  Morellus  the  numbering  of  the 
orations,  poems,  and  letters  differs  from  that  adopted  by  the  Benedictines; 
a  comparative  list  of  the  contents  of  both  editions  is  found  in  Fessler, 
Instit.  Patrol.  (1850 — 185 1),  i.  747 — 762.  The  Benedictine  edition  is  reprint- 
ed,   with  many  additions,  in  Migne,  PG.,  xxxv— xxxviii,  Paris,   1857 — 1858. 

9.  new  editions,  separate  editions.  —  S.  Basilii  Caesareae  Cappad. 
archiep.  et  S.  Gregorii  Theol.  vulgo  Nazianz.  archiepisc.  Constantinop. 
opera  dogmatica  selecta  (S.  Greg.  Orat.  de  dogmate  et  constitutione  episco- 
porum ,  Orat.  theologicae ,  Epist.  ad  Cledonium ,  Epist.  ad  Nectarium). 
Edenda  curavit  y.  D.  H.  Goldhorn,  Leipzig,  1854  (Bibl.  Patrum  graec. 
dogmatica.  Edendam  curavit  y.  C.  Thilo,  ii).  A  new  edition  of  the  Ora- 
tiones  quinque  de  theologia  was  brought  out  by  A.  y.  Mason,  Cambridge, 
1899;  cf.  Miser,  Les  manuscrits  Parisiens  de  Gregoire  de  Nazianze,  in 
Revue  de  Philologie  (1902),  xxvi.  44 — 62,  and  (1903),  xxvii.  125 — 138 
378 — 391.  E.  Bouvy ,  Les  manuscrits  des  discours  de  St.  Grdg.  de  Naz., 
in  Revue  Augustinienne  (1902),  pp.  222 — 237.  A  separate  edition  of  the 
Orat.  apologetica  de  fuga  sua  was  issued  by  y.  Alzog ,  Freiburg,  1858 
1868;  one  of  the  Orat.  in  fratrem  Caesarium  by  E.  Sommer,  Paris,  1875 
1885  1898;  one  of  the  Orat.  in  laudem  Machabaeorum  by  E.  Sommer, 
Paris,  1 89 1   1900.    A  diligently  edited  text  of  some  epic  and  didactic  poems 

1  Or.  42,   n.  15.  2  Or.   31,   n.  2. 

3  D.  Lenain  maintains,  in  the  Revue  d'histoire  et  de  litterature  religieuse  (1901), 
x1'  533  >  tnat  by  these  words  Gregory  means  no  more  than  that  the  formula  Holy 
Spirit  is  composed  of  two  words   «Holy»   and   «Spirit». 


§    68.      ST.    GREGORY    OF   NAZIANZUS,    THE    THEOLOGIAN.  293 

of  Gregory  is  found  in  W.  Christ  and  M.  Paranikas ,  Anthologia  graeca 
carminum  christianorum,  Leipzig,  187 1,  pp.  23 — 32;  cf.  Prolog,  xii — xv. 
The  two  metrical  pieces  Exhortatio  ad  virgines  and  Hymnus  vespertinus 
were  last  edited  by  IV.  Meyer ,  Anfang  und  Ursprung  der  lateinischen 
und  griechischen  rhythmischen  Dichtung,  in  Abhandlungen  der  k.  bayer. 
Akad.  d.  Wissensch.,  I.  Kl.,  xvii.  2,  400—409,  1885;  cf.  pp.  313 — 315; 
cf.  Fr.  Haussen,  in  Philologus  (1885),  xliv.  228 — 235,  and  Edm.  Bouvy, 
Poetes  et  Melodes,  Nimes,  1886,  pp.  133—138.  The  poems  of  Gregory 
generally  have  been  the  subject  of  numerous  works:  M.  Schubach ,  De  b. 
patris  Gregorii  Nazianzeni  Theologi  carminibus  commentatio  patrologica, 
Coblenz,  1871;  P.  Stoppel,  Quaestiones  de  Gregorii  Nazianzeni  poetarum 
scaenicorum  imitatione  et  arte  metrica  (Diss,  inaug.),  Rostock,  1881.  Cf. 
A.  Ludwich,  in  Rhein.  Museum  f.  Philol.,  new  series  (1887),  xlii.  233 — 238; 
G.  Knaack,  in  Neue  Jahrb.  f.  Philol.  und  Pädag.  (1887),  cxxxv.  619—620. 
E.  Dubedout ,  De  Gregorii  Nazianzeni  carminibus  (These),  Paris,  1901. 
W.  Ackermann,  Die  didaktische  Poesie  des  Gregorius  von  Nazianz  (Dissert.), 
Leipzig,  1903.  —  Christus  patiens.  Tragoedia  Christiana  quae  inscribi  solet 
Xpircos  -aoywv  Gregorio  Nazianzeno  falso  attributa.  Rec.  J.  G.  Brambs, 
Leipzig,  1885.  Id.,  De  auctoritate  tragoediae  christianae  quae  inscribi  solet 
Xpiaxoc  -acjytov  Gregorio  Nazianzeno  falso  attributa,  Eichstätt,  1883.  A 
German  version  of  that  tragedy  which  preserves  the  original  metre  was  made 
by  E.  A.  Pullig,  Bonn,  1893  (Progr.).  For  a  more  detailed  discussion  of 
this  drama,  the  only  survival  of  its  kind  in  the  Byzantine  period,  cf.  Krum- 
bacher ,  Geschichte  der  byzantinischen  Literatur,  2.  ed.,  München,  1897, 
pp.  746  rT. 

IO.  ANCIENT  COMMENTARIES  ON  THE  ORATIONS  AND  POEMS  OF  GREGORY.  — 

The  following  mediaeval  commentaries  on  the  orations  of  Gregory  are 
found  in  Migne,  PG.,  xxxvi :  Eliae  metropolitae  Cretae  commentarii  in  S.  Gre- 
gorii Naz.  orationes  19.  E  codice  ms.  Basileensi  excerpsit  A.  lahnius. 
Accedunt  Basilii  aliorumque  scholia  in  S.  Gregorii  orationes  e  codicibus 
Monacensibus  excerpta  (ib.,  737 — 932);  Nicetae  Serronii  commentarius 
in  orat.  1  et  n.  Accedunt  duorum  anonymorum  scholia.  Ex  edit.  Chr. 
Fr.  Matthaei  (ib.,  933 — 984);  Nonni  abbatis  commentarii  in  orationes  II 
contra  Iulianum  imp.  ex  edit.  Montacutii ,  in  laudem  funebrem  S.  Basilii 
et  in  orationem  in  sancta  lumina  ex  edit.  Maii  (ib.,  985 — 1072);  Basilii 
Minimi  scholia  in  orationem  duplicem  contra  Iulianum  imp.,  et  de  Herone 
philosopho,  edente  Boissonadio ,  et  ad  orationem  funebrem  in  Caesarium 
fratrem,  edente  L.  de  Sinner  (ib.,  1073  — 1206);  Anonymi  scholia  in 
easdem  orationes  contra  Iulianum  imp.,  ex  edit.  Montacutii  (ib.,  1205 — 1256, 
xxx).  A  supplement  to  these  commentaries  is  printed  in  Migne,  PG., 
cxxvii.  1 177 — 1480:  Nicetae  Serronii  Heracleensis  metropolitae  Expositio 
in  oratt.  38  39  40  45  44  41,  but  only  in  the  Latin  version  of  Billius.  For 
the  commentaries  of  «Abbot  Nonnus»  cf.  E.  Patzig,  De  Nonnianis  in 
IV  orationes  Gregorii  Naz.  commentariis ,  Leipzig,  1890  (Progr.).  Patzig 
is  of  opinion  that  the  author  of  these  commentaries  lived  in  Syria  or  Pale- 
stine, in  the  early  part  of  the  sixth  century;  the  name  of  Nonnus  is  not 
vouched  for  by  any  contemporary  evidence.  A.  Maraudiau  (Nonnos), 
Die  Scholien  zu  fünf  Reden  des  Gregor  von  Nazianz,  Marburg,  1903, 
Armenian  scholia  attributed  to  the  philosopher  and  translator  David.  See 
§  io7  )  3  for  commentaries  of  Maximus  Confessor  on  various  orations. 
Other  scholia  were  published  by  E.  Piccolomini,  Estratti  inediti  dai  codici 
greci  della  Biblioteca  Mediceo-Laurenziana,  Pisa,  1879,  pp.  1—45;  cf. 
Pref.  iii— xlii,  and  by  E.  Norden,  Scholia  in  Gregorii  Naz.  orationes  in- 
edita,  in  Hermes  (1892),  xxvii.  606 — 642;  Id.,  in  Zeitschr.  für  wissensch. 
Theol.  (1893),  ii.  441 — 447.  —  Migne,  PG.,  xxxviii,  contains  the  following 


294  SECOND   PERIOD.      FIRST   SECTION. 

commentaries  on  the  poems  of  Gregory :  Cosmae  Hierosolymitani  commen- 
tarii  .  .  .  (see  §  105,  6);  Nicetae  Davidis  Paraphrasis  carminum  arcanorum, 
cura  E.  Dronke  e  codice  Cusano  edita  (ib.,  681  —  842);  Anonymi  Para- 
phrasis carminis  de  libris  canonicis  (ib.,  843 — 846) ;  the  Prooemium  to  the 
Paraphrasis  of  Nicetas  David  is  found  in  Migne,  PG.,  cv.,  577 — 582. 

11.  versions.  —  Rufinus  of  Aquileja  translated  into  Latin  ten  of  the 
orations  of  Gregory  (§  67,  14)  and  Basil.  Eight  orations  in  the  trans- 
lation of  Rufinus  were  published  at  Strassburg  in  1508;  cf.  Fessler,  Instit. 
Patrol.  (1850 — 185 1),  i.  570,  and  Schoenemann,  Bibl.  hist.-lit.  Patrum  lat, 
i.  627 — 628  {Migne,  PL.,  xxi.  39 — 49).  The  version  of  Rufinus  was  not 
reprinted  in  Migne,  with  the  exception  of  the  preface  (PG.,  xxxvi.  735  to 
736).  The  Syriac  version  of  the  letter  Ad  Evagrium  monachum  de  divi- 
nitate  (see  no.  5)  has  already  been  mentioned  (§  47,  5).  It  was  edited 
by  de  Lagarde  and  Martin  and  translated  into  German  by  Ryssel.  The 
Carmina  iambica  of  Gregory  were  published  in  Syriac  by  J.  Bollig  and 
H.  Gismondi ,  Beirut,  1895 — 1896,  2  vols.  There  is  a  Syriac  version  of 
the  Orat.  in  laudem  Machabaeorum,  in  Bensly- Barnes,  The  Fourth  Book  of 
Maccabees,  Cambridge,  1895,  pp.  55 — 74.  Selections  from  Gregory  were 
translated  into  German  by  jr.  Röhm  (25  orations),  Kempten,  1874 — 1877, 
2  vols.  (Bibliothek  der  Kirchenväter),  and  by  F.  jf.  Winter  (who  follows 
closely  in  the  footsteps  of  Röhm),  «Ausgewählte  Reden»,  Leipzig,  1890 
(G.  Leonhardi ,  Die  Predigt  der  Kirche,  x);  G.  Wohlenberg  translated  the 
Apology  (see  no.  4),  Gotha,  1890  (Bibl.  theolog.  Klassiker,  xxix).  An 
English  version  of  selected  orations  and  letters  by  Ch.  W.  Browne  and 
J.  E.  Swallow  appears  in  A  Select  Library  of  Nicene  and  Post-Nicene 
Fathers  of  the  Christian  Church,  ser.  2,  New  York,  1894,  vii. 

12.  works  on  Gregory.  —  C.  Ullmann ,  Gregorius  von  Nazianz,  der 
Theologe,  Darmstadt,  1825,  2.  ed.,  Gotha,  1867.  Fr.  Böhringer ,  Die 
Kirche  Christi  und  ihre  Zeugen,  oder  die  Kirchengeschichte  in  Biographien, 
viii:  1.  Die  drei  Kappadozier.  2.  Gregor  von  Nyssa.  3.  Gregor  von 
Nazianz.  Stuttgart,  1876.  A.  Benoit ,  St.  Grdgoire  de  Nazianze,  arch- 
eveque  de  Constantinople  et  docteur  de  l'Eglise,  Paris,  1876,  2.  ed.  re- 
vue, 1885,  2  v°ls-  C-  Cavallier,  St.  Gregoire  de  Nazianze  .  .  .  par  l'abbe 
A.  Benoit,  etude  bibliographique,  Montpellier,  1886.  J.  Hergenröther ,  Die 
Lehre  von  der  göttlichen  Dreieinigkeit  nach  dem  hl.  Gregor  von  Nazianz, 
dem  Theologen,  Ratisbon,  1850.  Schwane ,  Dogmengeschichte,  Freiburg, 
1895,  ii,  §  18:  Die  Trinitätslehre  des  hl.  Gregor  von  Nazianz.  H.  Weiss, 
Die  grossen  Kappadozier  Basilius,  Gregor  von  Nazianz  und  Gregor  von 
Nyssa  als  Exegeten,  Brunsberg,  1872.  jf.  Dräseke,  Quaestionum  Nazianzena- 
rum  specimen  (Progr.) ,  Wandsbeck,  1876.  Id. ,  Gregorius  von  Nazianz 
und  sein  Verhältnis  zum  Apollinarismus ,  in  Theol.  Studien  und  Kritiken 
(1892),  lxv.  473 — 512.  Fr.  K.  Hummer,  Des  hl.  Gregor  von  Nazianz,  des 
Theologen,  Lehre  von  der  Gnade,  Kempten,  1890.  J,  F.  Asmus ,  Gre- 
gorius von  Nazianz  und  sein  Verhältnis  zum  Kynismus,  in  Theol.  Studien 
und  Kritiken  (1894),  lxvii.  314 — 339.  K.  Unterstein,  Die  natürliche  Gottes- 
erkenntnis nach  der  Lehre  der  kappadozischen  Kirchenväter  Basilius,  Gregor 
von  Nazianz  und  Gregor  von  Nyssa  (Progr.),  Strassburg,  1902 — 1903. 
K.  Weiss ,  Die  Erziehungslehre  der  drei  Kappadozier.  Ein  Beitrag  zur 
patristischen  Pädagogik,  in  Strassburger  Theol.  Studien,  Freiburg,  1903. 
Duchesne,  Hist,  ancienne  de  l'Eglise,  2.  ed.,  Paris,  ii,  c.  xii:  Gregoire  de 
Nazianze. 

13.  cesarius  of  nazianzus.  —  Caesarius,  a  younger  brother  of  Gre- 
gory (see  no.  2),  held  a  high  and  honorable  office  as  physician  in  the  im- 
perial court  under  Constantius  and  Julian,  and  was  also  honored  by  Jovian 
and  Valens.     He   died  just    as  he  was  about  to  retire   to  private   life,   in 


§    6g.      ST.    GREGORY    OF    NYSSA.  295 

368  or  the  early  part  of  369,  after  a  brief  illness.  The  collection  of  (197) 
miscellaneous  questions  and  answers,  chiefly  theological,  divided  into  four, 
dialogues  and  current  under  the  name  of  Caesarius  (Dialogi  IV  s.  Quae- 
stiones  et  responsiones :  Gallandi,  Bibl.  vet.  Patr.,  vi.  1 — 152,  and  thence 
reprinted  in  Migne ,  PG. ,  xxxviii.  851 — 1190),  is  declared  spurious  by 
nearly  all  critics. 

§  69.    St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa. 

I.  HIS  LIFE.  —  Gregory  of  Nyssa  was  a  brother  of  Basil  the 
Great,  younger,  it  is  thought,  by  several  years,  though  the  exact  date 
of  his  birth  is  not  known.  His  whole  youth,  indeed,  is  shrouded  in 
obscurity.  Basil  apparently  took  charge  of  his  education;  at  least 
Gregory  often  speaks  of  him  to  their  younger  brother  Peter  in  terms 
of  respect  and  gratitude ;  he  calls  him  the  beloved  father  and  teacher 
of  both:  r.azTjp  xac  diddaxaXoq  s.  xadiqpjTyg1.  He  was  already  an 
«anagnostes»  or  reader  in  the  Church  when  he  was  seduced  by  the 
charms  of  a  worldly  career,  and  embraced  the  calling  of  a  teacher  of 
rhetoric;  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  says2  that  he  would  then  rather  be 
called  a  rhetorician  than  a  Christian.  It  is  very  probable,  though  many 
deny  it,  that  he  was  married.  Eventually  he  yielded  to  the  prayers  of 
his  friends,  principally  of  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  and  entered  the  ec- 
clesiastical state.  He  gave  up  his  office  as  teacher,  withdrew  for  some 
time  into  solitude,  and  in  the  autumn  of  371,  much  against  his  will, 
was  consecrated  bishop  of  Nyssa,  an  insignificant  town  under  the  juris- 
diction of  St.  Basil.  He  met  with  violent  opposition  from  the  Arians 
of  this  place;  in  375  he  was  deposed  from  his  see  by  a  synod  of  Arian 
bishops  convened  by  Demosthenes,  governor  of  Pontus.  For  several 
years  he  led  a  wandering  life,  being  likened  by  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  3 
to  a  bit  of  drift-wood  tossed  hither  and  thither  by  the  waves.  The 
death  of  Valens,  at  the  end  of  378,  brought  about  a  change  in  the 
politico-ecclesiastical  situation.  The  return  of  Gregory  to  his  people 
assumed  the  character  of  a  triumphal  procession.  In  the  autumn  of  3  79 
he  took  part  in  a  synod  at  Antioch  specially  convoked  for  the  purpose 
of  healing  the  Meletian  schism.  In  381  he  attended  the  Second  Ecu- 
menical Council  at  Constantinople,  and  took  a  prominent  part  in  the 
proceedings  as  one  of  its  principal  theologians.  In  execution  of  the 
second  canon  of  the  Council  the  emperor  Theodosius  issued  a  de- 
cree (July  30.,  381) 4  that  all  those  should  be  expelled  as  heretics  from 
the  churches  of  Pontus  who  did  not  communicate  with  Helladius, 
bishop  of  Caesarea  (in  Cappadocia)  and  successor  of  Basil,  Otrejus 
of  Melitene  in  Armenia,  and  Gregory  of  Nyssa.  Gregory  visited  the 
capital  on  other  occasions;  the  last  time  he  appeared  there  was  in 
394,  when  he  assisted  at  a  synod  held  by  the  patriarch  Nestorius 
for  the  purpose  of  reconciling  some  Arabian  bishops.    After  this  his 

1  De  hominis  opificio,  prol. ;  In  Hexaemeron,  prol.  et  epil. ;  Ep.  ad  Petrum. 

2  Ep.   11.  3  Ep.  81.  4  c.  3,  C.  Th.  xvi,   1,  De  fide  cath. 


296  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

name  disappears  from  history;  it  is  believed  that  his  death  took 
place  about  this  time.  We  learn  from  one  of  his  letters1  that  his 
declining  years  were  troubled  by  paltry  annoyances  on  the  part  of 
Helladius  of  Caesarea. 

2.  EXEGETICAL  WORKS.  —  Gregory  of  Nyssa  is  one  of  the  most 
diligent  and  versatile  ecclesiastical  writers  of  his  day.  The  greater 
part  of  his  works  deal  with  scriptural  exegesis  although  it  was  not 
here  that  his  genius  shone  most  brightly.  He  was  a  great  admirer 
of  the  erudition  and  acumen  of  Origen;  hence,  in  most  of  his  own 
exegetical  writings  he  betrays  the  influence  of  the  hermeneutical 
principles  of  the  Alexandrine  doctor.  He  delights  in  seeking  and 
finding  beneath  every  word  of  the  biblical  text  a  fund  of  moral 
instruction.  The  result  is  that  under  this  treatment  the  literal  sense 
runs  great  danger  of  evaporating,  or  of  being  sacrificed  completely, 
e.  g.  at  the  beginning  of  his  homily  on  the  Canticle  of  canticles. 
He  is  most  sane  and  temperate  in  his  interpretation  of  the  Creation- 
narrative  Concerning  the  endowment  of  man  (nepi  xaraaxsüvjc,  avftpwizov)  2 
and  on  the  work  of  the  six  days  CAnoXoiprjrixbQ  nep\  ttjq  k$ar)p£poo)  3. 
Both  of  these  works  were  written  in  379  at  the  request  of  his  brother 
Peter,  the  bishop  of  Sebaste.  The  former,  also  the  first  written,  was 
meant  to  complete  the  homilies  of  Basil  on  the  work  of  the  six  days 
(§  67>  5) ;  the  second  was  written  in  order  to  remove  some  misunder- 
standings of  both  the  Scripture  text  and  Basil's  exposition  of  it.  Through- 
out this  work  Gregory  follows  in  the  footsteps  of  Basil  in  his  homilies 
and  pays  special  attention  to  the  literal  sense;  towards  the  end  he 
asserts,  not  without  a  certain  satisfaction,  that  he  has  never  distorted 
the  literal  sense  of  Scripture  into  figurative  allegory,  etc,  zpoTctxrjv 
aktyyopiav.  Yet  in  later  years,  when  he  exhibits  before  a  certain 
Csesarius  the  figure  of  Moses  as  a  model  and  criterion  for  one's  own 
life  (mpt  too  ßioo  Mwöaecog  too  vopoairou  rj  7tzp\  ttjq  xaz  apzrqv 
TeAetorqroQj*  he  indulges  in  the  boldest  and  most  fine-spun  allegorizing. 
In  the  two  tractates  usually  entitled:  scq  ttjv  e7iiypa(prjv  tcov  (paXpcov^, 
he  yields  still  more,  were  it  possible,  to  his  penchant  for  allegory. 
On  the  hypothesis  that  all  Psalms  contain  precepts  for  a  virtuous  life, 
he  seeks  to  demonstrate,  in  the  nine  chapters  of  the  first  tractate,  that 
the  Psalms  as  found  in  our  collection  are  distributed  according  to  a 
consistent  plan,  and  that  the  division  of  the  collection  into  five  books 
represents  five  steps  or  levels  of  an  educational  ladder  by  which  we 
gradually  reach  the  summit  of  perfection.  In  the  sixteen  chapters 
of  the  second  tractate  he  discusses  mostly  the  Septuagint  titles  of 
the  Psalms;  according  to  him  they  exist  for  the  sole  purpose  of  lead- 
ing to  something  good  (to  npuq  tl  tcov  ayaftuv  xaftyrfo-ao-ftou,  c.  2). 
In    the   editions   of  his  works  there  is  added  a  homily  on  the  sixth 

1  Greg.  Nyss.,  Ep.   1.  2  Migne ,    PG.,  xliv.   125 — 256. 

3  Ib.,  xliv.  61 — 124.  4  Ib.,  xliv.  297—430.  5  Ib.,  xliv.  432 — 608. 


§    69.      ST.    GREGORY    OF   NYSSA.  297 

Psalm1.  The  eight  homilies  on  Eccl.  i.  I  to  iii.  132,  aim  at  proving 
that  this  «truly  sublime  and  divinely  inspired»  book  has  for  its  pur- 
pose «the  uplifting  of  the  spirit  above  the  senses.  The  former  will 
then  lead  the  latter  into  a  region  of  peace,  through  its  renunciation 
of  all  that  is  apparently  great  and  splendid  in  the  things  of  this 
world»  (to  OTCspftetvai  rbv  voT)v  tyjq  ala&Yjoecüc,  xat  nauoai  xaraXinbvza 
izav  (hiTzip  iffTtv  peya  re  xat  Xafiizpbv  iu  rote,  ooaiv  (paivofievov) 3.  The 
fifteen  homilies  on  the  Canticle  of  canticles  (i.  1  to  vi.  8)  develop  in  a 
bold  and  free  manner  the  idea  that  under  the  preparations  for  a  human 
wedding  the  writer  depicts  the  union  of  the  human  soul  with  God 
(to  fikv  ü7ioypa(p6fi£vov  enSaXdpioQ  rig  sartv  Tzapaaxeoij,  to  d'  hvvoou- 
fievov  TYJc,  ävttpcüTrtvrjQ  (po/9]Q  7)  TtpoQ  to  ftelov  köTiv  dvaxpamq) 4.  In 
his  brief  tractate  on  the  Witch  of  Endor  (nsp\  ttjq  iyyaaTptpottoüJ5, 
he  says  that  the  woman  (1  Kings  xviii.  12  ff.)  did  not  see  Samuel  but 
a  demon  who  put  on  the  figure  of  the  prophet.  Among  Gregory's 
interpretations  of  the  New  Testament  are  five  homilies  on  the  Lord's 
Prayer  (elq  ttjv  7zpoaeuy7jv)Q,  and  eight  homilies  on  the  beatitudes  (ecq 
toüq  (laxapiapooQ)  7,  practical  and  exhortatory  commentaries  that  have 
always  been  highly  esteemed.  The  authenticity  of  the  exposition  of 
1  Cor.  xv.  28 8  is  disputed  by  some. 

3.  DOGMATICO-SPECULATIVE  WRITINGS.  —  The  dogmatico-specu- 
lative  writings  of  Gregory  of  Nyssa  surpass  in  value  his  exegetical 
writings.  The  most  important  of  them  is  his  large  «catechesis» 
(Xoyoq  xa.T7]%y)TLxbQ  b  piyagj9,  an  argumentative  defence  of  the  prin- 
cipal Christian  doctrines  against  heathens,  Jews,  and  heretics.  It  is, 
according  to  the  Prologue,  formally  dedicated  to  Christian  teachers, 
and  its  purpose  is  to  instruct  them  in  detail  how  best  to  seize  the 
opponent's  point  of  view,  and  to  proceed  from  his  own  admissions. 
Hence,  the  course  of  the  argument  varies  between  biblio-theological 
and  philosophico  -  speculative  considerations.  Foremost  among  the 
Christian  doctrines  are  the  Trinity,  the  Redemption  of  mankind  by 
the  Incarnate  Logos,  and  the  application  of  the  grace  of  Redemption 
through  baptism  and  the  Eucharist.  The  most  extensive  of  his 
extant  works ,  likewise  one  of  the  most  important  refutations  of 
Arianism,  is  that  against  Eunomius  in  twelve  (or  thirteen)  books, 
Trpbq  Euvopiov  dvTtpp7jTtxo\  XSyoi10.  It  was  undertaken  at  the  request 
of  his  brother  Peter,  of  whom  only  this  letter  to  his  brother  Gregory 
has  been  preserved11,  as  a  reply  to  the  onep  ttjq  aTtokoyiac,  diroXoyia 
with  which  Eunomius  had  answered  the  writing  of  St.  Basil  against 
himself  (§  67,  4),  probably  a  short  time  before  the  death  of  St.  Basil, 
with  the  double  purpose  of  defending  the  latter  against  the  accusations 

1  Ib.,  xliv.  608 — 616.              2  Ib.,  xliv.  616—753.  3  Horn.   1   to  i.   I. 

4  Horn.   1.              5  Migne,  PG.,  xlv.    108— 113.  6  Ib.,  xliv.    1120 — 1193. 

7  Mt  v.   1  — 10:  lb.,  xliv.    1 193 — 1301.              8  Ib.,  xliv.    1304 — 1325. 

*  Ib.,  xlv.  9  — 105.              10  Ib.,  xlv.   237 — 1 121.  u  lb.,  xlv.  241 — 244. 


298  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

of  Eunomius  in  his  reply  to  Basil,  and  of  fully  expounding  the 
teaching  of  Basil  concerning  the  divinity  of  the  Son  and  the  Holy 
Ghost.  The  internal  disposition  of  the  books  into  which  it  is  divided, 
and  their  order  of  succession,  are  not  yet  sufficiently  clear;  in  the 
text  of  all  editions  up  to  the  present  the  connection  and  progress 
of  the  writer's  thought  appear  interrupted  and  uncertain.  Gregory  wrote 
also  two  works  against  Apollinaris  of  Laodicea.  The  first  avTipprjuxbc 
TtpoQ  ra  'AnoAAtvapiotj1,  is  an  answer  (written  probably  before  383)  to 
the  work  of  Apollinaris  entitled  «Demonstration  of  the  Incarnation 
of  God  in  the  image  of  man»  (§  61,  4).  It  is  devoted  to  the  re- 
futation of  the  heresy  of  Apollinaris,  viz.  that  the  body  of  Christ 
came  down  from  heaven,  and  that  in  it  the  divine  Logos  took  the 
place  of  the  human  soul  (vouq).  An  appendix  to  this  work  is  the  small 
tractate  xclt  'AizoXlivapiou 2  dedicated  to  Theophilus,  patriarch  of  Alex- 
andria. Other  works  of  Gregory  are  devoted  to  the  defence  and 
illustration  of  the  Trinitarian  teaching  of  the  Church.  Among  them 
are  a  treatise  entitled:  How  we  must  not  believe  that  there  are 
three  gods  (mp\  too  pvj  oleaftai  Xiyeiv  rpzic,  ^eo6g)d  addressed  to  a 
certain  Ablabius;  a  similar  work  entitled:  Against  the  heathens  on 
a  basis  of  common  sense  (rrpoQ  'EXkrjvaQ  ix  tcou  xoivcov  evvoicov)^; 
On  faith,  to  the  tribune  Simplicius  (rrep)  ttcgtzcoq) 5  in  defence  of  the 
divinity  of  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit;  On  the  Trinity  and  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  God,  printed  among  the  works  of  St.  Basil  (nep\ 
rrjQ  ay'iaQ  rpiddoq  xai  oti  ftebg  to  jzusupa  to  dyiov) 6.  It  is  addressed 
to  Eustathius  of  Sebaste,  and  is  by  some  ascribed  to  Basil.  Mai 
discovered  two  orations  of  Gregory  of  Nyssa  against  Arius  and  Sa- 
bellius7  and  another  (incomplete)  against  the  Macedonians8.  —  An 
especial  interest  attaches  to  the  Dialogue  of  Gregory  with  his  sister 
Macrina  on  the  soul  and  the  resurrection  (jispl  <po%rjQ  xai  dvaaTaaecoQ)^. 
He  was  still  grieving  over  the  loss  of  his  brother  Basil  when,  on 
his  homeward  journey  from  a  synod  at  Antioch,  he  visited  (379) 
his  sister  Macrina,  to  whom  he  was  no  less  devoted  than  to  his 
brother.  She  was  then  resident  on  an  estate  of  the  family  situated 
on  the  river  Iris  in  Pontus,  as  the  superior  of  a  pious  sisterhood  with 
whom  she  led  a  life  of  entire  consecration  to  the  divine  service. 
Gregory  found  her  in  immediate  danger  of  death;  their  conversation 
naturally  turned  on  their  future  reunion  in  heaven.  This  dialogue, 
composed  shortly  after  the  death  of  Macrina,  puts  into  her  mouth 
the  views  of  Gregory  on  the  soul,  death,  resurrection  and  the  final 
restoration  of  all  things.  Macrina  appears  as  a  teacher,  hence  the 
work    is   entitled    to.    Maxpivia.     In    the    treatise   against   Fate,    xazd 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xlv.    1124 — 1269.  2  Ib.,  xlv.    1269 — 1277. 

3  Ib.,  xlv.  116— 136.  4  lb.,  xlv.    176—185.  5  Ib.,   xlv.    136—145. 

6  lb.,  xxxii.  684 — 696,   inter  opp.   S.   Bas.   M.  7  Ib.,  xlv.   12S1  — 1301. 

8  Ib.,  xlv.    1301  — 1333.  9  Ib.,  xlvi.    12 — 160. 


§    69.      ST.    GREGORY    OF    NYSSA.  299 

si/iapfisvyg1,  he  defends  the  freedom  of  the  will  against  astrological 
fatalism.  The  treatise  on  children  who  die  prematurely  (irepc  tcov 
vrjTzuov  izpb  topag  dy>ap7ra£ofi£vcov)2  undertakes  to  explain  to  Hierius, 
prefect  of  Cappadocia,  why  God  permits  such  untimely  deaths.  The 
work  «Selected  arguments  against  the  Jews»,  exXoyat  papropuov  npbg 
7o>jdaioi>Qs,  is  probably  spurious  and  certainly  interpolated. 

4.  ASCETICAL  WORKS.  —  More  or  less  ascetic  in  tendency  are 
the  little  works :  On  the  meaning  of  the  Christian  name  or  profession 
fjispi  tod  Tt  rb  ypwTiavcov  ovopa  7}  eizdyysXpa)^,  written  to  a  certain 
Harmonius;  On  perfection  and  what  manner  of  man  the  Christian 
should  be  (irep\  reXewn/jrog  xai  bitoiov  ypy  ehai  tov  ypumavov)5,  to 
the  monk  Olympius;  On  the  end  (of  creation)  according  to  the  di- 
vine will  (nepi  too  xolto.  ftebv  axonou)6,  written  especially  for  monks. 
The  admirable  book ;  On  virginity  (nepi  Tzapftzviag) 7  or  the  state  of 
perfection  was  written  during  his  retirement,  about  370.  Its  purpose, 
as  stated  in  the  preface,  is  to  strengthen  in  all  who  read  it  the  de- 
sire for  a  virtuous  life,  ttjc,  xo.t  dpsTYjv  ^iovjq.  Elsewhere  the  practico- 
moral  view-point  often  asserts  itself  in  his  discourses  and  letters. 

5.  DISCOURSES  AND  LETTERS.  —  The  former  are  not  numerous, 
but  they  exhibit  the  contemporary  fondness  for  superfluous  ornament 
and  magniloquence,  to  which  even  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  fell  a 
victim  (§  68,  6),  although  the  latter  is  far  superior  as  an  orator  both 
to  St.  Basil  and  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa.  Among  the  moral  writings 
of  our  Gregory  may  be  mentioned  the  discourses :  Against  those  who 
put  off  their  baptism,  npbg  toüq  ßpaduvovTag  elg  to  ßdirTtopa',  Against 
the  usurers,  xaTÖ.  tcuv  toxi^ovtuv,  Against  those  who  mourn  ex- 
cessively for  their  dead,  izpbg  toüq  rcevftouvTag  erci  toIq  dnb  too  xap- 
ovTog  ßiou  TTpbg  tov  diSiov  psttiffTapevoiQ.  The  discourse  on  the 
divinity  of  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit  and  on  the  faith  of  Abraham, 
Ttsp}  fteoTTjTOQ  ülou  xol  7TveupaTog  AoyoQ  xoc  syxcüfjttou  elg  tov  dixawv 
'Aßpadp,  delivered  probably  in  383  at  Constantinople,  is  often  men- 
tioned with  esteem  in  later  Greek  literature.  It  is  the  same  subject 
that  recurs  in  the  discourse  usually  entitled  «On  his  own  delegation», 
slg  ty]v  eaoToo  yetpoToviav,  delivered  probably  at  Constantinople  in 
381,  when  he  was  charged,  in  company  with  Helladius  and  Otrejus, 
with  the  ecclesiastical  supervision  of  the  province  of  Pontus.  He 
wrote  also  a  few  other  discourses  for  feasts  of  the  Church,  panegyrics 
on  the  protomartyr  Stephen  (two),  on  the  martyr  Theodore,  on  the 
forty  martyrs  of  Sebaste  (two),  on  St.  Ephraem  Syrus  and  on  St.  Basil. 
We  possess  also  from  his  pen  three  funeral  sermons,  on  Meletius  of 
Antioch,  the  princess  Pulcheria,  and  the  empress  Flaccilla;  the  first 
was   probably  delivered   in    381    during   the  Council;    the  other  two 

1  Ib.,   xlv.    145 — 173.  2  lb.,   xlvi.    161  — 192.  3  Ib.,  xlvi.    193— 233. 

4  Ib.,  xlvi.   237—249.  5  Ib.,  xlvi.   252—285.  e  Ib.,  xlvi.   288—305. 

7  Ib.,  xlvi.  317 — 416. 


300  SECOND    PERIOD.      FIRST   SECTION. 

in  close  succession,  during  385  and  at  Constantinople.  Gregory  has 
given  in  the  form  of  an  encomium  also  his  biography  of  St.  Gregory 
Thaumaturgus  (§  47,  1)  and  that  of  his  sister  Macrina.  —  There  are 
twenty-six  of  his  letters  in  Migne 1.  Special  mention  may  be  made  of 
two  letters  that  led  to  lively  controversies  between  Catholics  and  Pro- 
testants in  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries.  They  are  no.  3 
to  the  sisters  Eustathia  and  Ambrosia,  and  no.  2  on  those  who  go  as 
pilgrims  to  Jerusalem,  7iep\  tcov  ämovrcov  £cq  ^hpoaohjfia.  At  the  re- 
quest of  the  Synod  of  Antioch  (379),  but  according  to  others  at  that 
of  the  Second  Eucumenical  Council  (381),  Gregory  made  a  journey 
to  Arabia  in  order  to  restore  ecclesiastical  peace  in  that  country,  on 
which  occasion  he  also  visited  the  holy  places  of  Palestine.  In  the 
first  of  the  letters  referred  to,  he  relates  the  vivid  impressions  made 
on  him  by  the  sight  of  the  holy  places  and  speaks  with  sorrow  of 
the  unhappy  ecclesiastical  conditions  of  Palestine;  in  the  second  he 
condemns  severely  the  abuses  that  were  springing  up  apropos  of 
pilgrimages  and  utters  a  warning  against  exaggerated  notions  of  their 
religious  value;  in  his  zeal  against  abuses  he  may  have  failed  to 
appreciate  justly  the  intrinsic  value  of  this  pious  practice. 

6.  GREGORY'S  PLACE  IN  THEOLOGY.  —  The  ecclesiastical  impor- 
tance of  Gregory  consists  in  his  power  of  philosophical  defence  and 
demonstration  of  the  Christian  faith.  He  was  a  man  of  erudition,  both 
as  a  philosopher  and  a  theologian,  but  less  adapted  to  and  competent 
for  the  office  and  works  of  a  pastor  of  souls  and  an  ecclesiastical 
administrator.  At  least  St.  Basil  complains  frequently  of  the  ex- 
cessive amiability  and  simplicity  (xpyawzyQ,  anXoryQ)  of  his  brother2. 
On  a  later  occasion3  he  declared  him  thoroughly  inexperienced  in 
ecclesiastical  affairs,  izavrelwQ  äxetpov  zcov  xavä  ~ag  exxA^acag,  and 
quite  unsuited  to  deal  with  a  person  so  conscious  of  his  office  and 
position  as  Pope  Damasus.  However,  all  the  more  praise  was  be- 
stowed on  the  scientific  accomplishments  of  Gregory,  which  he  put 
to  the  best  use  in  his  speculation  on  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity 
and  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body. 

7.  the  trinity  in  Gregory's  writings.  —  It  is  clear  from  the 
preceding  account  of  Gregory's  writings  (no.  3;  cf.  no.  5)  that  he  was 
an  indefatigable  defender  of  the  divine  nature.  He  is  not  so  happy  in 
his  attempts  to  reconcile  the  Trinity  and  the  Unity.  He  seems  to  anti- 
cipate, in  a  measure,  the  extreme  realism  of  the  Middle  Ages,  and  to 
admit,  even  in  finite  things,  the  numerical  unity  of  essence  or  nature. 
«We  begin  by  stating»,  says  he  in  the  opening  paragraph  of  the  treatise 
De  eo  quod  non putandum  sit  tres  Deos  diet  oportere**,  «that  it  is  a 
prevalent  abuse  to  bestow  the  name  of  nature  in  the  plural  on  those 
things  which  do  not  differ  in  nature,  to  speak  for  example  of  many 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xlvi.  2  Ep.   58  60   100.  3  Ep.   215. 

4  Migne,  PG.,  xlv.   117   120. 


§    6g.      ST.    GREGORY    OF    NYSSA.  3OI 

men.  It  is  the  same  as  if  we  spoke  of  many  human  natures.  .  .  . 
There  are  many  indeed  who  share  the  same  nature.  .  .  .  But  in  all 
of  them  man  is  one  (wars  tzoXXooq  phv  elvat  touq  peTeayrjxoTaq  ttjq 
(puaecoq  .  .  .  iva  de  iv  näotv  tov  ävfrpcoTTov),  because,  as  we  have  said, 
the  term  man  indicates  not  the  individual  but  the  common  nature.  .  .  . 
It  would  be  far  better  to  correct  this  faulty  expression  of  ours  and 
cease  to  cover  a  plurality  with  the  name  of  nature;  we  should  then 
be  no  longer  tempted  to  project  our  error  of  speech  into  theological 
doctrine.»  This  confusion  of  the  abstract  idea  that  excludes  plurality 
with  the  concrete  idea  that  exacts  a  plurality,  comes  out  even  more 
plainly  in  the  treatise  Adv.  Graecos  ex  communibus  notionibus 1 :  eoTtv 
de  xat  ffirpog  xa\  IJauÄoQ  xal  Dapvdßaq  xarä  to  avftpcoTzoo,  etc,  dv- 
3pco7TOQ  xat  xarä  to  auTo  tooto,  xaTa  to  avftpomoc,  TCOJUat  od  dtwavrat 
elvat,  XiyovTat  de  tzoXXoi.  avftpamot  xaTayp^aTtxcog  xat  od  xoptwg.  It 
is  all  the  more  necessary,  he  goes  on  to  say,  to  hold  fast  to  the 
unity  of  God  or  the  divinity,  because  the  word  deoq  expresses  an 
activity  rather  than  a  nature  (it  comes  from  fteaa&at,  and  means  to 
look  down  upon  all  things),  and  this  activity  can  only  be  one, 
although  the  divine  persons  have  it  in  common.  What  is  true  of 
the  Trinity  differs  essentially  from  what  holds  good  in  the  case  of 
the  activity  of  three  philosophers  or  rhetoricians.  «Every  activity  that 
proceeds  from  God,  which  relates  to  creatures,  and  is  designated 
according  to  the  variety  thereof,  takes  its  origin  from  the  Father,  pro- 
ceeds through  the  Son,  and  is  perfected  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  ex  zaTpbg 
u.tpoppaTai  xa\-  dtd  too  üiolj  izpöetatv  xa\  ev  tw  Tzveopaxt  tw  ayico 
TeXewüTat.  Hence  we  cannot  speak  of  several  activities,  though  we 
predicate  plurality  of  the  active  persons.  The  activity  of  each  is  not 
divided  and  separate ;  but  whatever  is  done,  be  it  God's  providential 
love  for  us  or  His  government  and  direction  of  the  world,  is  done 
by  the  three,  nor  are  the  things  done  threefold,  od  pr^v  Tpia  eaTii/ 
to.  ytvopeva2.»  There  is  a  difference,  therefore,  between  the  manner  in 
which  the  three  divine  persons  respectively  have  the  one  divine  activity 
ad  extra,  and  their  immanent  mutual  relations.  Gregory  often  refers 
to  this 3.  He  lays  all  possible  stress  on  one  point :  the  distinction  of 
three  divine  persons  consists  in  their  immanent  relations.  He  ex- 
plains with  amazing  clearness  and  precision  the  relations  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  the  Father  and  the  Son.  «Should  any  one»,  he  says 
toward  the  end  of  the  treatise  addressed  to  Ablabius4,  «object  against 
our  teaching  that  by  the  denial  of  any  difference  in  nature  we  con- 
fuse and  commingle  the  hypostases,  we  reply  that,  while  firmly  ad- 
hering  to    the   identity  of  nature  (to  dnapdlAaxTov  rTjc  (pooecog),    we 

1  Ib.,  xlv.  180.  2  Ib.,  xlv.  125. 

3  Ep.   5   ad  Sebastenos :  Mig?ie,  PG.,  xlvi.    1032;  Serm.  adv.  Macedonianos,  n.  19: 
ib.,  xlv.    1325. 

4  Migne,  PG.,  xlv.   133. 


302  SECOND    PERIOD.      FIRST   SECTION. 

do  not  deny  the  distinction  between  the  principle  and  what  pro- 
ceeds from  it.  We  find  this  distinction  between  them;  we  believe 
that  the  one  is  the  principle  and  that  the  other  is  from  the  principle, 
and  in  what  is  from  the  principle  we  find  another  distinction.  For 
the  one  is  from  the  first  immediately  (Tzpoazycoc,) ,  the  other  only 
mediately  and  through  that  which  is  immediately  from  the  first,  so 
that  the  characteristic  note  of  Only-begotten,  to  povoysvig,  belongs 
undoubtedly  to  the  Son.  On  the  other  hand  it  is  certain  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  proceeds  from  the  Father,  for,  while  the  mediation  of 
the  Son  requires  for  Him  the  character  of  Only-begotten,  it  does  so 
without  taking  from  the  Holy  Spirit  his  natural  relation  to  the  Father.» 
In  the  Sermo  adv.  Macedonianos,  n.  21,  he  states  the  ecclesiastical 
faith  as  follows:  «We  confess  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  co-ordinate, 
aovzezdy^ai ,  with  the  Father  and  the  Son,  so  that  between  them 
there  is  absolutely  no  difference  as  regards  all  things  that  can  be 
thought  and  said  in  a  God-fearing  way  concerning  the  divine  nature, 
save  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  distinct  hypostasis,  zaP  üttoötoiolv 
Idia^övrcüQ  ftecopeiottai,  because  He  is  from  God,  ix  too  fteoo,  and  is 
of  Christ,  zoo  XpioToo,  as  it  is  written  (John  xv.  26 ;  Rom.  viii.  9 ; 
Phil.  i.  19;  Gal.  iv.  6),  in  this  way  that  He  does  not  share  either 
with  the  Father  in  the  property  of  not  proceeding  (to  äyivvrjTov),  or 
with  the  Son  in  the  property  of  the  Only-begotten.»  He  frequently 
calls  the  Son  the  glory,  doga,  of  the  Father,  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
the  glory  of  the  Son2.  Gregory  never  treats  of  such  questions  as 
the  manner  in  which  the  three  persons  proceed  in  the  one  divine 
nature  or  from  the  divine  intellect  and  will,  nor  what  it  is  that  con- 
stitutes the  three  hypostases  three  distinct  persons. 

8.  GREGORY'S  VIEWS  ON  THE  RESURRECTION  AND  THE  FUTURE 
LIFE.  —  In  his  works  on  the  creation  of  man,  and  on  the  soul  and 
the  resurrection  (De  hominis  opificio,  De  anima  et  resurrectione  etc.). 
Gregory  teaches  that  man  is  the  link  between  two  distinct  and 
mutually  opposed  worlds,  the  focus  in  which  the  world  of  the  spirit 
and  the  world  of  the  senses  meet.  The  soul  is  not  prior  to  the 
body,  as  Origen  maintained ,  nor  does  it  begin  to  exist  after  the 
body,  as  now  and  then  some  have  inferred  from  the  biblical  ac- 
count of  creation3;  the  twro  constitutive  elements  of  human  nature 
come  into  existence  at  one  and  the  same  moment 4.  Thenceforward 
they  are  and  remain  most  intimately  united ;  even  death  does  not  inter- 
rupt completely  their  mutual  relations;  their  temporary  separation  is 
followed  by  an  indissoluble  reunion.  He  explains  as  follows6  the  eccle- 
siastical  doctrine  of  the  identity  of  the   present   body  with    that  of 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xlv.    1304. 

2  Contra  Eunom.,  lib.  i:  Migne,  PG.,  xlv.  372;  Serm.  adv.  Maced. ,  n.  20:  ib., 
xlv.    1328. 

3  De  horn,  opif.,  c.   28.  4  Ib.,  c.   29.  5  lb.,   c.   27. 


§    69.      ST.    GREGORY    OF    NYSSA.  3O3 

the  resurrection :  «Since  the  soul  is  possessed  of  a  certain  natural 
inclination  and  love  towards  the  body  that  once  was  its  own,  there 
continues  to  dwell  (in  the  departed  soul)  a  secret  fondness  for  and 
a  knowledge  of  its  own  property,  too  olxeioo  ayiatc,  re  xai  intyvcoaiQ. 
Now  in  every  such  body  there  are  inherent  certain  natural  signs 
by  reason  of  which  the  common  matter  remains  distinct,  and  distin- 
guishable by  these  peculiarities.  ...  It  is  not,  therefore,  unreasonable 
to  believe  that  in  the  resurrection  our  bodies  will  separate  themselves 
from  the  common  matter  and  return  to  their  special  forms  of  being. 
This  will  appear  more  clearly  if  we  observe  more  closely  our  own 
nature.  Our  essence,  to  ^pixepov,  is  not  entirely  subject  to  motion 
and  change ;  it  would  be  perfectly  unintelligible  if  there  were  not  in 
it  something  essential  that  never  changed.  Closer  observation  shows 
that  there  are  in  us  a  changeable  and  a  permanent  element.  The 
body  changes  through  growth  and  decay  .  .  .  but  its  form,  to  sldog, 
remains  unchanged.  .  .  .  Now,  since  this  form  remains  with  the  soul 
like  the  impress  of  a  seal,  that  (portion  of  matter)  which  has  already 
left  upon  the  soul  the  impress  of  its  image  (form),  can  never  be  un- 
known to  the  soul;  on  the  contrary,  in  the  hour  of  final  restoration 
of  all  things,  t7jQ  dvaaToc/eitoGsajc,  the  soul  takes  again  to  itself  what 
corresponds  to  the  image  of  the  form;  but  what  was  originally 
stamped  with  the  form  certainly  corresponds  to  this  image.»  In 
the  treatise  on  the  soul  and  the  resurrection1  and  in  the  discourse  «on 
the  dead»  2  he  treats  more  particularly  of  the  body  of  the  resur- 
rection. For  a  long  time  there  has  been  much  opposition  to  his 
views  concerning  the  great  difference  that  will  exist  among  the 
arisen  and  its  final  cessation.  «Not  everything»,  says  he3,  «that 
returns  to  existence  by  the  resurrection  will  enter  upon  the  same  life 
as  before.  Rather  is  there  a  great  difference  between  those  who  have 
been  purified  and  those  who  still  stand  in  need  of  purification.  .  .  . 
Those  who  have  been  cleansed  from  the  filth  of  iniquity  through 
the  water  of  the  sacrament,  did  too  oooltoq  too  uuazixoo,  need  no 
other  purification,  too  kzepoo  tcov  xaftapauov  sl'dotjQ,  while  those 
who  have  never  received  that  sacramental  cleansing,  ol  TauTTjQ 
dpurjToi  TTJQ  xattdpascog,  must  necessarily  be  purged  through  fire.» 
Finally,  however,  all  nature  must,  by  an  unavoidable  necessity, 
return  to  its  original  happy  and  divine  and  painless  condition,  yj 
eni  to  paxdpwv  zz  xai  tielov  xai  zzdarjc,  xazrppziao,  xtyoipiopivov 
aTzoxazdazaoiq*.  When  after  long  ages,  the  evil  which  now  in  all 
creatures  has  permeated  nature,  has  been  extirpated  from  it,  and 
the  restoration  to  their  original  condition  takes  place,  rq  £ig  to 
dpydiov    dnoxazdozaoic,    zcov  vuv  iu  xax'ta  xzipivcov ,    of  all  those  who 

1  De  an.  et  resurr. :  Migne,  PG.,  xlvi.    148  ff. 

2  Or.  de  mortuis :  lb.,  xlvi.   529  ff. 

3  Or.  catech.,  c.   35  :  Ib.,  xlv.   92  ;  cf.  c.   8.  *  lb  ,  c.  35. 


3O4  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

now  lie  sunk  in  evil,  then  shall  every  creature  intone  a  chant  of 
thanksgiving  to  the  Redeemer;  even  the  inventor  of  evil,  o  eupezyg 
rot)  xaxou,  will  have  a  part  in  this  hymn  of  thanksgiving1.  In  such 
phrases  he  maintains,  apparently,  a  general  restoration  (Apocalastasisj 
to  divine  favor  of  all  sinful  creatures;  the  pains  of  hell  have, 
therefore,  only  a  medicinal  significance,  and  are  not  eternal  but 
temporary.  Indeed,  he  repeats  these  views  in  his  dialogue  De  an. 
et  resurr.  At  the  end  of  time,  he  says  in  this  dialogue,  all  without 
exception  will  enjoy  the  divine  bounty  i.  e.  will  live  in  God2;  the 
distinction  between  a  virtuous  and  an  evil  life  will  then  consist  chiefly 
(pdXtara)  in  the  more  or  less  rapid  (ftazrov  fj  oyoXawrepov)  realization 
of  the  hapiness  that  we  hope  for3.  In  his  discourse  De  mortuis  he 
says  that  the  sinner  must  be  purified  in  this  life  «by  prayer  and  philo- 
sophy» or  in  the  life  to  come  by  the  way  of  purging  fire4.  When 
all  shall  have  been  finally  cleansed  from  evil,  then  shall  be  resplendent 
in  all  the  one  divine  beauty5.  Nevertheless  he  often  speaks  of  the 
pains' of  hell  as  eternal.  Thus,  in  the  Oratio  catechetica,  c.  40 6, 
he  says  expressly  that  its  fire  is  inextinguishable  and  speaks  of  the 
immortality  of  «the  worm»,  and  of  an  eternal  sanction,  ij  auovia 
avridomg;  in  his  Or.  c.  usurarios7  he  threatens  them  with  eternal 
suffering,  eternal  punishment,  alcoviog  Xumf,  vj  alcoviog  xoXaatg:  in 
De  castigatione^  he  speaks  of  unceasing  and  inconsolable  lamen- 
tation through  eternity,  zbv  äbjxTov  oouppbv  xai  äTrapap'jttyroi;  sic 
altovag.  But  this  «eternity»  is  elsewhere  interpreted  by  himself  in 
such  terms  as  töuq  paxpatg  mpioootg9,  toIq  xaftrjxoucnv  ypovoig,  paxpalg 
Köre  TrspioSoig10.  The  hypothesis  of  Germanus  of  Constantinople 
(§  107,  5)  that  the  writings  of  Gregory  had  been  interpolated  at  a 
later  date  is  therefore  both  useless  and  gratuitous.  Gregory  could 
not  imagine  an  eternal  estrangement  from  God  of  his  intellectual 
creatures.  God  cannot  completely  alienate  himself  from  them.  By 
an  intrinsic  necessity  they  must  one  day  turn  away  from  evil  and 
cling  to  the  good  and  the  divine  with  which  their  own  nature  stands 
in  such  close  kinship n. 

9.  editions  of  his  writings.  —  The  writings  of  Gregory  of  Nyssa 
have  hitherto  been  rather  strangely  neglected.  There  is  no  complete  edi- 
tion that  satisfies  even  the  most  modest  demands.  In  modern  times  G.  H. 
Forbes  and  Fr.  Oehler  undertook  the  task  of  producing  such  an  edition ; 
S.  P.  N.  Gregorii  Nysseni  Basilii  M.  fratris  quae  supersunt  omnia,  in  unum 
corpus  collegit,  ad  fidem  codd.  mss.  recensuit,  latinis  versionibus  quam  accurä- 
tissimis  instruxit  et  genuina  a  supposititiis  discrevit  Gregorius  H.  Forbesius, 

1  Or.  catech.,  c.   26.  2  Migne,  PG.,  xlvi.    152. 

s  Ib.,  xlvi.    152    157 — 160.  4  Ib.,  xlvi.   524   525. 

5  Ib.,  xlvi.   536.  e  Ib.,  xlv.    105.  7  Ib.,  xlvi.,   436  452. 

8  lb.,  xlvi.   312.  9  Or.  catech.,  c.   26:   ib.,  xlv.  69. 

10  De  an.  et  resurr.:  ib.,  xlvi.    152    157. 

11  De  horn,  opif.,   c.   21  :  ib.,  xliv.   201. 


§    6g.      ST.    GREGORY    OF    NYSSA.  305 

Burntisland,  1855  1861,  but  only  two  fascicles  of  the  first  volume  of  this 
edition  were  printed  containing;  pp.  1 — 95  :  Apologia  in  Hexaemeron;  pp.  96 
to  319:  De  conditione  hominis;  pp.  320 — 350:  De  vita  Moysis  (a  part  only), 
with  an  extensive  critical  apparatus.  Of  Oehler's  edition  only  the  first 
volume  was  printed:  S.  Gregorii  episc.  Nysseni  opera,  ex  recensione  Francisci 
Oehler,  tomus  I,  continens  libros  dogmaticos,  Halle,  1865,  pp.  1 — 454:  LibriXII 
contra  Eunomium;  pp.  455 — 595  :  Confutatio  alterius  libri  Eunomii  [?] ;  pp.  597 
to  673:  Adnotatio.  The  text-criticism  is  defective.  The  best  of  the  earlier 
editions  is  that  of  Fronio  Ducaeus,  S.  J.,  Paris,  161 5,  2  vols.  An  ample 
appendix,  compiled  by  jf.  Gretser,  S.  J.,  Paris,  1618,  was  incorporated  in 
the  second  edition  of  Ducaeus  (f  Sept.  25.,  1624),  Paris,  1638,  3  vols. 
Other  «inedita»  of  Gregory  of  Nyssa  were  made  known  by  L.  A.  Zacagni, 
Collectanea  monumentorum  veterum  ecclesiae  graecae  ac  latinae,  Rome, 
1698,  i;  by  J.  B.  Caracciolo ,  S.  P.  N.  Gregorii  episc.  Nyssae  epistolae 
septem,  Florence,  173 1,  and  by  A.  Mai,  Script,  vet.  nova  coll.  viii,  Rome, 
1833,  part  2,  and  Nova  Patr.  Bibl.  iv,  Rome,  1847,  Part  *•  Some  already 
known  writings  were  re-edited  by  J.  G.  Krabinger ,  with  the  aid  of  new 
codices:  the  dialogue  De  anima  et  resurr.,  Leipzig,  1837;  the  Orat.  catech. 
(and  the  Orat.  funebris  in  Miletium  ep.,  Antioch,  xlvi.  852 — 864),  Munich, 
1838;  the  five  homilies  on  the  Lord's  Prayer,  Landshut,  1840.  For  the  Or. 
catech.  see  J.  H.  Srawley ,  The  Mss.  and  Text  of  the  Or.  Catech.  of 
Gregory  of  Nyssa,  in  Journal  of  Theological  Studies  (1902),  iii.  421 — 428; 
Id.,  New  ed.  of  Orat.  Catech.,  Cambridge,  1903.  G.  Mercati,  Varia  Sacra 
(Testi  e  Studi  11),  Rome,  1903,  pp.  57 — 70,  claims  Ep.  189  among  the 
letters  of  Basil.  Magn.  as  the  work  of  our  Gregory.  He  also  edited  it  anew, 
ib.,  pp.  71 — 82,  with  the  aid  of  hitherto  unknown  texts.  The  most  com- 
plete collection  of  the  writings  of  Gregory  is  in  Migne ,  PG.,  xliv — xlvi, 
Paris,  1838,  but  these  volumes  have  no  critical  value.  For  extracts  from 
the  De  vita  Moysis  taken  from  newly  discovered  papyrus  -  codices  see 
H.  Landwehr,  Griechische  Handschriften  aus  Fayyüm,  in  Philologus  (1885), 
xliv;  cf.  pp.   19—21. 

10.  translations.  —  In  the  sixth  century  Dionysius  Exiguus  trans- 
lated into  Latin  the  work  of  Gregory  on  the  constitution  of  man  (De  con- 
ditione hominis,  in  Migne,  PL.,  lxvii.  345 — 408).  A  Syriac  version  of  the 
Explanation  of  the  beginning  of  the  Lord's  Prayer  was  edited  by  P.  Zingerle, 
in  Monumenta  syriaca  ex  romanis  codicibus  collecta,  Innsbruck,  1869,  i. 
in — 116.  A  German  version  of  several  important  writings  was  published, 
with  the  Greek  text,  by  Fr.  Oehler ,  in  his  Bibliothek  der  Kirchenväter, 
Leipzig,  1858 — 1859,  part  I  (the  only  one).  A  German  recension  with 
critical  notes,  of  the  treatise  De  anima  et  resurrectione,  is  owing  to 
FT.  Schmidt,  Halle,  1864.  There  appeared,  in  the  Kempten  Bibliothek 
der  Kirchenväter,  German  translations  of  the  following:  Life  of  St.  Ma- 
crina,  his  sister ;  Great  Catechesis ;  Treatise  on  the  constitution  of  man ; 
Dialogue  with  his  sister  Macrina  on  the  soul  and  the  resurrection  (trans- 
lations of  H.  Hayd,  1874);  the  moral  discourses,  Panegyrics,  and  funeral 
orations  were  translated  by  J.  Fisch,  ib.,  1880.  Selected  discourses  in 
German  version  by  F.  J.  Winter,  in  Leonhardi-v.Langsdorff,  Die  Predigt 
der  Kirche,  Leipzig,  1895,  xxix.  Many  of  his  writings  are  translated 
into  English  by  Schaff ,  A  Select  Library  of  Nicene  and  Post-Nicene 
Fathers  of  the  Christian  Church,  New  York,   1893,  series  II,  v. 

11.  SPURIOUS   WORKS.       ASTERIUS     OF    AMASEA.       NEMESIUS    OF    EMESA.    — 

The  two  spurious  Orationes  in  Scripturae  verba:  faciamus  hominem  ad 
imaginem  et  similitudinem  nostram  [Migne,  PG.,  xliv.  257 — 298)  are  found 
under  another   title   in   the  editions   of  the  works   of  St.  Basil  (§  67,   11). 

Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  20 


3<d6  second  period,     first  section. 

The  Or.  II  de  resurr.  Domini  (Ib.,  xlvi.  627 — 652)  belongs  to  the  Mono- 
physite  Severus  of  Antioch  (§  102,  2).  Cf.  A.  Baumstark,  in  Rom. 
Quartalschr.  für  christl.  Altertumskunde  (1897),  xi.  32.  The  treatise  or 
fragment  De  eo  quid  sit  ad  imaginem  Dei  et  ad  similitudinem  (Ib.,  xliv. 
1328 — 1345)  seems  to  be  spurious.  Cf.  J.  B.  Kumpfmüller,  De  Anastasio 
Sinaita,  Würzburg,  1865,  pp.  150—151.  The  ten  syllogisms  against  the 
Manichaeans  (Contra  Manichaeos  Oratio:  Ib.,  xlvi.  541)  are,  as  Fessler 
(Instit.  Patrol.,  1850 — 1851,  i.  595)  saw,  taken  literally  from  the  treatise  of 
Didymus  the  Blind  against  the  Manichaeans  (§  70.  2).  On  the  Ep.  26  ad 
Evagrium  monachum  de  divinitate  (Migne,  PG.,  xlvi.  n 01 — 1108),  which 
probably  belongs  to  the  works  of  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  see  §  47,  5  and 
68,  5.  Two  homilies,  Adhortatio  ad  poenitentiam  and  In  principium 
ieiuniorum,  formerly  attributed  to  our  Saint  (Ib.,  xlvi.  539),  are  now  known 
to  be  works  of  his  contemporary,  St.  Asterius,  metropolitan  of  Amasea  in 
Pontus  about  the  end  of  the  fourth  century.  To  the  same  Asterius  [Migne, 
PG.,  xl.  164 — 477)  are  ascribed  21  homilies  —  among  them  the  above- 
mentioned  13  and  14  —  most  of  which  are  devoted  to  interpretation  of 
Scriptural  passages  (e.  g.  Horn.  6  in  Danielem  et  Susannam)  or  to  the 
glorification  of  the  Saints.  On  earlier  editions  of  these  homilies  cf.  Fessler- 
Jungmann,  Instit.  Patr.,  i.  624.  L.  Koch,  Asterius,  Bischof  von  Amasea,  in 
Zeitschr.  f.  die  histor.  Theol.  (1871),  xli.  77 — 107.  For  a  Sylloge  historica 
on  Asterius  see  V.  de  Buck,  in  Acta  Ss.  Oct.,  Paris,  1883,  xiii.  330—334. 
The  treatise  on  the  soul  printed  among  the  works  of  Gregory  of  Nyssa 
(-opt  ^u/%:  Ib.,  xlv.  188 — 221)  is  only  a  fragment  (cc.  2  and  3)  of  the  work 
of  Nemesius  «On  the  nature  of  man»  (rspl  cpussio?  avftpu>7rou:  Ib.,  xl.  504 — 817). 
Nemesius,  it  is  generally  believed,  was  bishop  of  Emesa  in  Phoenicia  in  the 
early  part  of  the  fifth  century.  His  work  belongs  really  to  the  history  of 
philosophy ;  in  it  he  chiefly  discusses  psychological  questions  and  is  strongly 
influenced  by  Neoplatonist  thoughts.  In  the  Middle  Ages  it  was  much  read 
and  was  translated  into  several  languages.  Its  manuscript  tradition  is  dis 
cussed  by  K.  jf.  Burkhard,  in  Wiener  Studien  (1888),  x.  93 — 135;  (1889),  xi. 
143—152  243 — 267;  cf.  (1893),  xv.  192 — 199.  Migne  (1.  c.)  reprints  the 
latest  edition,  that  of  Chr.  Fr.  Matthaei,  Halle,  1802.  A  Latin  version,  made 
probably  by  Alfanus,  archbishop  of  Salerno  (f  1085),  was  published  by 
C.  Holzinger,  Leipzig  and  Prague,  1887;  cf.  CI.  Bäumker,  in  Wochenschr. 
f.  klass.  Phil.  (1896),  pp.  1095 — 1102.  Another  Latin  version,  made  in 
1 159  by  the  Pisan  jurist  Johannes  Burgundio,  was  edited  (in  part)  by  K.  J. 
Burkhard,  Vienna,  1891 — 1896  (two  progr.),  and  1901  (Progr.j.  Cf.  M. 
Fvangelides,  Nemesius  und  seine  Quellen,  Berlin,  1882.  B.  Domanski,  Die 
Psychologie  des  Nemesius,  Münster,  1900  (Beiträge  zur  Gesch.  der  Philo- 
sophie des  Mittelalters,  iii.  1).  J.  Dräseke ,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  wissenschaftl. 
Theol.  (1901),  xliv.  391 — 410,  attributes  to  Nemesius  the  -spl  tou  /ara- 
cppovstv  tov  iMvaxov,  current  under  the  name  of  Demetrius  Cydonius  [Migne, 
PG.,  cliv,   1 169— 1 21 2)  and  re-edited  by  H.  Weckelmann,  Leipzig,   1901. 

12.  works  on  Gregory  of  nyssa.  —  J.  Rupp ,  Gregors,  des  Bi- 
schofs von  Nyssa,  Leben  und  Meinungen,  Leipzig,  1834.  St.  P.  Heyns, 
Disputatio  historico-theologica  de  Gregorio  Nysseno,  Leyden,  1835.  ^r- 
Böhringer,  Die  Kirche  Christi  und  ihre  Zeugen  oder  die  Kirchengeschichte 
in  Biographien,  2.  ed.,  viii:  1.  Die  drei  Kappadozier,  2.  Gregor  von  Nyssa, 
3.  Gregor  von  Nazianz.  Stuttgart,  1876.  E.  G.  Möller,  Gregorii  Nysseni 
doctrinam  de  hominis  natura  et  illustravit  et  cum  Origeniana  comparavit 
E.  G.  M.,  Halle,  1854.  J.  N.  Stigler ,  Die  Psychologie  des  hl.  Gregor 
von  Nyssa,  Ratisbon,  1857.  L.  Kleinheidt ,  S.  Gregorii  episc.  Nysseni 
doctrina  de  angelis,  Freiburg,  i860.  AI.  Vincenzi,  In  S.  Gregorii  Nysseni 
et  Origenis  scripta  et  doctrinam  nova   recensio,    cum    appendice   de   actis 


§    70.      DIDYMUS   THE    BLIND.  307 

synodi  V.  oecum.,  Rome,  1864 — 1869,  5  vols.  H.  Weiss,  Die  grossen  Kappa- 
dozier  Basilius,  Gregor  von  Nazianz  und  Gregor  von  Nyssa  als  Exegeten, 
Brunsberg,  1872.  A.  Krampf ,  Der  Urzustand  des  Menschen  nach  der 
Lehre  des  hl.  Gregor  von  Nyssa,  Würzburg,  1889.  Fr.  Hilt,  Des  hl.  Gregor 
von  Nyssa  Lehre  vom  Menschen  systematisch  dargestellt,  Cologne,  1890. 
J.  Bauer,  Die  Trostreden  des  Gregorius  von  Nyssa  in  ihrem  Verhältnis 
zur  antiken  Rhetorik  (Inaug.-Diss.).  Marburg,  1892.  Fr.  Diekamp ,  Die 
Gotteslehre  des  hl.  Gregor  von  Nyssa,  Münster,  1896,  i.  A.  Reiche,  Die 
künstlerischen  Elemente  in  der  Welt-  und  Lebensanschauung  des  Gregor 
von  Nyssa  (Inaug.-Diss.),  Jena,  1897.  W.  Votiert,  Die  Lehre  Gregors  von 
Nyssa  vom  Guten  und  Bösen  und  von  der  schliesslichen  Überwindung  des 
Bösen,  Leipzig,  1897.  H.  Koch,  Das  mystische  Schauen  beim  hl.  Gregor 
von  Nyssa,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1898),  lxxx.  397 — 420.  E.  Michaud, 
St.  Gregoire  de  Nysse  et  l'Apocatastase,  in  Revue  internationale  de  Theo- 
logie (1902),  pp.  37 — 52.  K.  Unterstein ,  Die  natürliche  Gotteserkenntnis 
nach  der  Lehre  der  kappadozischen  Kirchenväter  Basilius,  Gregor  von 
Nazianz  und  Gregor  von  Nyssa  (Progr.),  Strassburg,  1902 — 1903.  K.  Weiss, 
Die  Erziehungslehre  der  Kappadozier  etc.,  Freiburg,  1903. 

§  70.     Didymus  the  Blind. 

1.  HIS  LIFE.  —  Didymus,  surnamed  «the  Blind»,  is  one  of  the 
most  notable  men  of  an  age  that  abounded  in  great  personalities. 
He  was  born  at  Alexandria  about  310,  and  lost  his  sight  while  yet 
young,  at  the  age  of  four  according  to  Palladius 1 ;  after  his  fifth  year 
(post  quintum  nativitatis  suae  annum),  says  St.  Jerome2,  Rufinus 
writes  as  follows3  concerning  Didymus: 

Miscebat  tarnen  precibus  studia  ac  laborem  et  iuges  continuatasque 
vigilias  non  ad  legendum,  sed  ad  audiendum  adhibebat,  ut,  quod  aliis  visus, 
hoc  illi  conferret  auditus.  Cum  vero  post  lucubrationis  laborem  somnus,  ut 
fieri,  solet,  legentibus  advenisset,  Didymus  silentium  illud  non  ad  quietem  vel 
otium  datum  ducens,  tamquam  animal  ruminans  cibum  quern  ceperat  ex 
integro  revocabat  et  ea  quae  dudum  percurrentibus  aliis  ex  librorum  lectione 
cognoverat  memoria  et  animo  retexebat,  ut  non  tam  audisse  quae  lecta 
fuerant  quam  descripsisse  ea  mentis  suae  paginis  videretur.  Ita  brevi  Deo 
docente  in  tantam  divinarum  humanarumque  rerum  eruditionem  ac  scien- 
tiam  venit,  ut  scholae  ecclesiasticae  doctor  exsisteret  ...  sed  et  in  ceteris 
sive  dialecticae  sive  geometriae,  astronomiae  quoque  vel  arithmeticae  dis- 
ciplinis  .  .  .  esset  paratus.  .  .  . 

He  was  president  of  the  catechetical  school  of  Alexandria  for 
more  than  a  half  century;  Rufinus  and  Jerome  were  among  his  dis- 
ciples. He  remained  a  layman,  and  was  married ;  his  death  probably 
occurred  about  395.  Didymus  was  strongly  influenced  by  his  great 
predecessor  Origen,  not  only  in  his  exegetical  method,  but  in  his 
doctrinal  views.  In  later  times  he  was  anathematized  as  an  Origenist, 
i.  e.  a  believer  in  the  pre-existence  of  the  soul  and  in  the  Apo- 
catastasis.  In  March  or  April  553  the  bishops  who  had  gathered  at 
Constantinople  for  the  fifth  General  Council  (May  5.  to  June  2.   553) 

1  TZTpaeTTjq,  in  Hist.  Laus.,  c.  4.  2  Chron.  ad  a.  Abr.  2388. 

3  Hist,  eccl.,  ii.  7. 

20  * 


3<d8  second  period,     first  section. 

condemned  Origen  and  the  Origenistic  doctrines  of  Didymus  the 
Blind  and  the  deacon  Evagrius  Ponticus  (f  about  399).  Other  General 
Councils  (sixth,  seventh,  and  eighth)  repeated  the  anathema  of  the 
fifth  against  Origen,  Didymus  and  Evagrius. 

2.  WRITINGS  OF  DIDYMUS.  —  The  extant  works  of  Didymus  are 
partly  dogmatic  and  partly  exegetical.  The  most  important  is  his  work 
on  the  Trinity,  nsp}  rptddoQ1,  in  three  books  found  by  J.  A.  Min- 
garelli  in  a  somewhat  incomplete  and  very  faulty  codex  of  the  ele- 
venth century,  and  published  by  him  in  1769.  This  work  was  written 
(after  379)  against  Arianism.  St.  Jerome,  who  knew  well  the  Origenistic 
tendency  of  the  author2,  says  rightly  that  in  this  treatise  he  is  un- 
doubtedly orthodox  (certe  in  tj'initate  catholicus  est)  3.  An  earlier  work 
on  the  Holy  Spirit  (De  Spiritu  Sancto)  is  considered  a  supplement  of 
the  work  on  the  Trinity,  principally  of  the  second  book  of  it.  It  has 
reached  us  only  in  the  sixty-three  brief  chapters  of  St.  Jerome's  Latin 
translation 4.  When  Pope  Damasus  requested  the  latter  to  compose  a 
work  on  the  Catholic  doctrine  concerning  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  pre- 
ferred, as  he  says  in  the  preface,  alieni  op  er  is  interpres  ex  sister  e  quam, 
ut  quidam  faciunt,  alienis  se  coloribus  adornare.  This  work  is,  in- 
deed, one  of  the  best  of  its  kind  in  Christian  antiquity.  Less  important 
is  the  tractate  against  the  Manichaeans,  xarä  Mavc/aiayv*.  Its  eighteen 
chapters  have  reached  us  in  the  original  text,  but  apparently  in  an 
imperfect  condition.  He  is  very  probably  also  the  author  of  the  last 
two  books  of  the  alleged  work  of  St.  Basil's  Adversus  Eunomium;  for 
they  seem  to  be  a  compendium 6  of  the  two  books  of  Didymus'  De 
dogmatibus  et  contra  Arianos  (cf.  67,  4,  13).  He  wrote  many  other 
works,  dogmatic,  polemic,  and  apologetic  in  character,  that  have  been 
lost  or  still  await  discovery.  Among  these  is  a  work  devoted  to  the 
exposition  and  defence  of  Origen's  nepl  äpycov  (bizofiv^paxa  siq  ~a  Trsp} 
(Ipywv  'Qptyivouq).  In  his  exegetical  writings  Didymus  was  a  slavish 
follower  of  Origen  in  his  allegorico- mystical  method  of  interpretation; 
but  only  a  few  fragments,  however,  have  been  saved  from  his 
many  prolix  commentaries.  The  most  complete  of  them  is  the  ex- 
position of  the  canonical  Epistles  (In  Epistolas  canonicas  enarratio  7) ; 
and  even  that  has  reached  us  only  in  the  Latin  version  and  recension 
of  Epiphanius  the  Scholastic,  undertaken  at  the  suggestion  of  Cassio- 
dorus.  The  genuineness  of  this  commentary,  though  denied,  has  been 
defended  with  success  by  J.  A.  Cramer  in  his  edition  of  the  Catena  of 
Greek  on  the  Canonical  Epistles  (Oxford,  1840).  It  is  here  that 
the  Origenism  of  the  author  reaches  its  frankest  expression.   Mai  found 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xxxix.   269 — 992.  2  Adv.  Rtifin.,  i.   6;  ii.    II. 

3  Ib.,   ii.    16 ;  cf.  iii.   27. 

4  Migne,  PG.,  xxxix.   1031 — 1086;   PL.,  xxiii.   101  — 154. 

6  Migne,  PG.,  xxxix.    T085 — 11 10.  6  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.    109. 

7  Migne,  xxxix.    1749 — 1818. 


§    70-      DIDYMUS    THE    BLIND.  3O9 

in  a  Catena  and  published  (1847)  numerous  scholia  of  Didymus  to 
Second  Corinthians1;  he  also  found  and  published  (1854)  remnants 
of  scholia  on  all  the  Psalms2  attributed  to  Didymus,  and  probably 
remnants  of  a  complete  commentary  on  the  Old  Testament.  In 
detail,  however,  the  genuineness  of  these  Mai  fragments  is  still  open 
to  discussion.  It  may  be  said  that  their  author  was  certainly  an 
Alexandrine,  that  he  is  a  pronounced  allegorist,  and  seeks  in  most 
of  the  Psalms  a  Messianic  sense  and  a  mystico-ascetic"  teaching.  Mai 
also  published  at  the  same  time  some  fragments  of  the  Commen- 
tary on  Proverbs  3. 

3.  works  on  didymus.  —  For  details  of  the  ecclesiastical  condem- 
nation of  Didymus  and  Evagrius  cf.  Fr.  Diekamp ,  Die  origenistischen 
Streitigkeiten  im  6.  Jahrhundert  etc.,  Münster,  1899,  pp.  131  f.  Ferd.  Min- 
gar ellius ,  Veterum  testimonia  de  Didymo  Alexandrino  Coeco,  ex  quibus 
tres  libri  de  Trinitate  nuper  detecti  eidem  asseruntur.  Cum  animadv., 
Rome,  1764.  Didymi  Alex,  libri  tres  de  Trinitate.  Nunc  primum  graece 
et  lat.  ac  cum  notis  ed.  J.  Aloys.  Mingar ellius ,  Bologne,  1769;  the 
«Veterum  testimonia»  printed  at  the  beginning  of  this  edition  were  all  col- 
lected by  Mingarelli's  brother.  Didymi  Alex,  praeceptoris  S.  Hieronymi  in 
omnes  Epist.  canon,  enarratio,  nun  quam  antehac  edita.  Ace.  eiusdem  de 
Spiritu  S.  ex  Hieron.  interpr.,  Cologne,  1531.  A  critical  edition  of  the 
very  corrupt  text  of  this  «Enarratio»,  with  addition  of  a  new  original  frag- 
ments, was  issued  by  G.  Chr.  Fr.  Lücke,  Quaestiones  ac  vindiciae  Didy- 
mianae,  Göttingen,  1829 — 1832  (4  Univ.  progr.).  The  scholia  to  Second 
Corinthians  are  in  Mai,  Nova  Patr.  Bibl.,  iv  2,  115 — 146,  where  there  is 
an  appendix  (pp.  147 — 152)  of  commentary- fragments  by  Didymus  on  the 
fourth  Gospel,  not  edited  by  B.  Corderius,  S.  J.,  in  his  Catena  on  that 
Gospel,  Antwerp,  1630.  J.  Chr.  Wolf  edited  from  a  Catena  some  frag- 
ments of  a  commentary  on  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles:  Anecdota  Graeca, 
Hamburg,  1724,  iv.  For  the  scholia  on  the  Psalms  cf.  Mat,  vii  2,  131 
to  311  (note  the  fragment  on  the  title  of  Ps.  iv.  in  Mai,  1.  c,  iii  1,  456; 
2,  284).  The  fragments  on  Proverbs  are  in  Mai,  1.  c. ,  vii  2,  57  —  71. 
Corderius  had  already  printed  some  fragments  of  a  Didymus-commentary 
on  the  Psalms,  Antwerp,  1643 — 1646;  J.  A.  Mingarelli  published  others 
at  Bologna,  1784.  P.  Junius  (Patrick  Young)  made  known  some  frag- 
ments on  Job:  Catena  Graec.  Patr.  in  beatum  Job,  London,  1637.  Other 
fragments  on  Genesis,  Exodus,  and  2  Kings  became  known  by  the 
publication  at  Leipzig,  1772 — 1773,  of  the  Catena  of  Nicephorus  on  the 
Octateuch  and  the  Books  of  Kings.  All  these  editions  are  found  in 
Migne,  PG.,  xxxix.  A  Latin  scholion  to  Gen.  i.  27,  in  Pitra,  Spicilegium 
Solesm.,  i.  284,  is  attributed  to  Didymus.  According  to  Dräseke,  Didy- 
mus was  also  the  author  of  the  first  of  the  two  books  against  Apollinaris 
printed  in  the  editions  of  Saint  Athanasius:  J.  Dräseke,  Zu  Didymus  von 
Alexandriens'  Schrift  «über  die  Trinität».  Mitteilungen  aus  Albert  Jahns 
Nachlass,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1902),  xlv.  410 — 416.  Th. 
Schermann,  Lateinische  Parallelen  zu  Didymus,  in  Rom.  Quartalschr.  (1902), 
xvi.  232 — 242  (see  also  §  63,  3   10). 

4.  evagrius  PONTicus.  —  Evagrius  called  Ponticus,  perhaps  from  his 
native  province,  was  born  in  Pontus  about  345,  and  about  380  was  ordained 

1  Ib.,  xxxix.    1679 — 1732.  2  lb.,   xxxix.    1 155 — 1616. 

3  Ib.,  xxxix.    T621 — 1646. 


310  SECOND    PERIOD.      FIRST    SECTION. 

deacon  by  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  whom  he  accompanied  to  the  Second  Ecu- 
menical Council  of  Constantinople  (381),  where  he  remained  for  some 
years  with  the  patriarch  Nectarius  (381 — 397).  He  was  moved  to  leave 
that  city  by  the  dangers  which  his  virtue  encountered;  after  a  short  stay 
in  Jerusalem  he  betook  himself  to  Egypt,  where  he  followed  the  monastic 
rule,  first  in  the  Nitrian  Desert,  and  then  in  the  great  monastery  known 
as  Ta  xsXXia.  He  is  said  to  have  steadfastly  refused  an  episcopal  see  offered 
him  by  Theophilus  of  Alexandria.  He  died  in  the  desert  at  the  age  of  54, 
highly  esteemed,  both  as  an  ascetic  and  a  writer  (cf.  Pallad. ,  Hist.  Laus., 
c.  86).  Evagrius  was  well-known  already  during  his  life  as  an  Origenist. 
Jerome  reproaches  him  with  Origenistic  opinions,  and  calls  him  a  forerunner 
of  Pelagius  (Ep.  133  ad  Ctesiphontem,  n.  3;  Dial.  adv.  Pelag.,  prol. ;  Comm. 
in  Jer.,  iv,  prol.).  We  have  already  stated  (see  no.  1)  that  at  a  later  date 
he  was  condemned  as  an  adherent  of  the  pre-existence  of  the  soul  and 
of  the  Apocatastasis.  His  writings  were  put  into  Latin  by  Rufinus  [Hier., 
Ep-  133,  3)  and  by  Gennadius  (Gennad.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  11),  and  perhaps 
about  the  same  time  translated  by  others  into  Syriac.  Only  a  few  brief 
and  broken  fragments  have  reached  us.  Gallandi  was  the  first  to  make  a 
critical  collection  of  them,  in  Bibl.  vet.  Patr.  vii.  551 — 581  (cf.  xx — xxii). 
His  edition  is  reproduced  in  Migne,  PG.,  xl.,  and  begins  with  the  works 
first  discovered  (1686)  by  y.  B.  Cotelier :  jxovor/os  \  rcepl  KpaxrixYJc  (Monachus 
seu  de  vita  activa),  and  the  twv  xa-a  jxovor/uiv  -paYfjiaTwv  ra  aixta  xal  rk 
xaft'  yjjuytav  xoutwv  icapa&efftc  (Rerum  monachalium  rationes  earumque  iuxta 
quietem  adpositio).  Both  Cotelier  and  Gallandi  give  only  fragments  and 
excerpts  of  the  fxovor/6?.  Another  corresponding  work  mentioned  by 
Socrates  (Hist,  eccl.,  iv.  23):  yvwjtixo?  y]  rspi  -ctuv  xaTa£tü>&evrwv  -pwsEüK  (?) 
has  perished.  Then  follow  various  collections  of  apophthegms,  rules  of  life 
and  aphorisms,  which  are  only  partly  extant  in  Latin  \  while  in  the  Greek 
text  they  are  also  current  under  the  name  of  St.  Nilus.  The  tractate  rcept 
twv  <3xtw  Xo-yiafAwv  (De  octo  vitiosis  cogitationibus)  is  obviously  a  remnant  of 
the  collection  of  scriptural  texts  made  by  Evagrius  in  self-defence  against 
various  (8)  temptations  as  recorded  above  by  Socrates  (1.  c.)  and  Gennadius 
(1.  a);  for  a  new  edition  of  it  cf.  A.  Elter,  Gnomica,  Leipzig,  1892,  i.  In 
an  appendix  to  Zöckler' s  Evagrius  Ponticus  (Munich,  1893),  Fr.  Baethgen 
published  a  German  translation  of  a  Syriac  fragment  from  a  (lost)  larger  work 
of  Evagrius  on  the  eight  evil  thoughts.  If  Evagrius  did  not  invent  the  theory 
of  the  eight  vices,  he  is  at  least  the  first  known  representative  of  it,  and 
was  thereby  the  forerunner  of  the  doctrine  of  the  seven  capital  sins.  It 
is  very  doubtful  that  the  scholion  eU  to  II  III  I  (in  Gallandi  and  Migne  at 
the  last  place)  belongs  to  Evagrius ;  its  latest  editor  is  P.  de  Lagarde,  Ona- 
mastica  Sacra,  Göttingen,  1870,  i.  205 — 206  (2.  ed.  1887).  It  treats  of  the 
ten  Jewish  names  of  God  and  in  particular  of  the  sacred  tetragram ;  111111 
(in  some  codices  mm),  is  a  reproduction  of  the  Hebrew  letters  mrr  (read 
from  left  to  right).  Cf.  E.  Nestle ,  in  Zeitschr.  der  deutschen  Morgenl. 
Gesellschaft  (1878),  xxxii.  465  fl.  O.  Zöckler,  Evagrius  Pontikus,  Munich, 
1893.  (Zöckler,  Biblische  und  kirchenhistorische  Studien,  fasc.  iv).  Cf.  y. 
Dräseke ,  Zu  Euagrios  Pontikos,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  wissensch.  Theol.  (1894), 
xxxvii.   125 — 137. 

§  71.    St.  Epiphanius. 

1.  HIS  LIFE.  —  Epiphanius  was  born  about  315  in  a  hamlet  near 
Eleutheropolis  in  Judaea,  and  devoted  himself  from  early  youth  to  the 
study  of  the  sacred  sciences.  At  the  same  time  he  took  up  with 
special  zeal  the  study  of  foreign  languages,  and  according  to  St.  Je- 


§    71-      ST-    EPIPHANIUS.  311 

rome1   became    a   master   of  Greek,    Syriac,    Hebrew   and   Egyptian 
(Coptic),    to   some   extent   also    of  Latin.     The   holy  monk  Hilarion 
exercised  much  influence  over  the  Palestinian  youth,  and  it  was  pro- 
bably his  exhortations  that   led  Epiphanius  to  visit  Egypt  in  search 
of  more  advanced   instruction.     He   frequented    there   the  society  of 
the  most  famous  monks,  and  came  also  into  contact  with  the  Gnostics, 
who  made  vain  efforts  to  win  him  over  to  their  heresy.    When  about 
twenty  years  of  age  he  returned   to    his   native  land   and  founded  a 
monastery  near  Eleutheropolis  over  which  he  presided  for  some  thirty 
years,  in  the  course  of  which  time  he  was  ordained  to  the  priesthood. 
The  fame  of  his   learning  and   piety  induced  the  bishops  of  Cyprus 
to    choose   him   in  367    as    their    metropolitan    and    bishop    of  Con- 
stantia,  the  ancient  Salamina.    In  this  capacity  he  became  distinguished 
for    his    mortified    and    holy    life,    for   his   activity    in    the  spread  of 
monasticism,  and  for  his  fiery  zeal  in  defence  of  the  purity  of  eccle- 
siastical doctrine.    Indeed,  this  zeal  is  the  distinguishing  mark  of  Epi- 
phanius.    It   is  true   that   it  was  not  always   coupled  with    calmness 
and    moderation   nor  with   a   deep   knowledge   of  the  world   and  of 
men;    hence   the  troubles   that  darkened  the   latter  years  of  his  life. 
He  had  always  been  a   strong  opponent  of  Origenism,    both   in   his 
writings  and  his  discourses.     It  was   with  the  intention    of  pursuing, 
to    one   of  its  principal    centres,    a  heresy  which  seemed   to  him  ex- 
ceedingly dangerous  that  in  394  he  visited  Jerusalem,    the  home   of 
Origen's   most   determined    and   influential    admirers.      Among    them 
were  John  II. ,    bishop  of  the  city,  Jerome  who   lived   in  Bethlehem, 
and  Rufinus,  their  friend  and  guest.    In  presence  of  the  bishop  and 
a  great  multitude  assembled  in  the  Church    of  the  Holy  Sepulchre, 
Epiphanius    delivered    a    discourse    against    Origen    and    his    errors. 
When  John  refused  to  condemn  the  Alexandrine,    Epiphanius  broke 
off  ecclesiastical   communion   with   him.      Rufinus    sided    with   John, 
while  Jerome  took  the  part  of  papa  Epiphanius  TcevrdykoTTOQ2  whom 
he   held    in  great   veneration.     Fresh    fuel   was   added   to   the   flame 
when  Paulinian,    brother   of   St.  Jerome,    was   ordained   a   priest   by 
Epiphanius,    at  a  place  not   far  from  Eleutheropolis,    in   the  diocese 
of  Jerusalem,  and  against  the  will  of  the  bishop.    It  was  several  years 
before  a  reconciliation  was  effected  through  the  efforts  of  Theophilus, 
patriarch  of  Alexandria,    at   that   time  very  Origenistic  in  his  views. 
Shortly  after,    in  399,    the   artful    Theophilus  declared  himself  to  be 
strongly   opposed    to  Origenism   and    took   violent   measures   against 
those  Egyptian  monks  who  adhered  to  the  cause  of  Origen.    When 
thereby   he  became  involved  in  difficulties  with  St.  Chrysostom,    he 
called  on  Epiphanius  as  an  ally  against  the  bishop  of  Constantinople 
whom  he  held  up  as  a  defender  of  Origen.    It  was  probably  in  402 
that  Epiphanius  summoned  to   a  synod  the  bishops  of  Cyprus,    and 

1  Adv.  Rufin.,  ii.  22.  2  Ib.,  iii.  6. 


312  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

condemned  Origen  and  his  writings.  Soon  after,  despite  his  advanced 
age,  he  listened  to  the  suggestions  of  Theophilus  and  went  to  Con- 
stantinople, in  order  to  wage  war  in  person  against  the  Origenists 
of  that  city.  The  well-meaning  but  short-sighted  old  man  was  very 
active  in  the  beginning  against  Chrysostom;  soon,  however,  he  was 
convinced  of  his  error,  and  recognized  that  he  had  been  used  as  a 
tool  by  Theophilus.  Without  waiting  for  the  Council  of  the  Oak 
(§  74,  4)  he  took  ship  for  Cyprus  and  died  at  sea,  May  12.,  403. 
2.  POLEMICAL  WRITINGS.  —  The  writings  of  Epiphanius  are 
nearly  all  devoted  to  the  refutation  of  heresy.  He  had  often  been 
requested  by  admirers  from  Syedra  in  Pamphylia,  to  write  a  large 
work  in  which  they  might  find  explained  the  true  and  sound  faith 
concerning  the  holy  Trinity  and  particularly  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
he  yielded  in  374  and  wrote  the  dyxupcozog1  i.  e.  «the  firmly- 
anchored  man».  Its  purpose,  from  which  it  often  wanders  very 
widely,  is  to  afford  a  solid  anchorage  to  those  of  the  faithful  who 
are  cast  about  on  the  waves  of  Arian  and  Semiarian  conflict.  The 
two  Professions  of  faith  with  which  the  work  ends  were  addressed 
to  the  community  of  Syedra,  to  be  used  in  baptism,  and  deserve  great 
attention.  Caspari  has  shown  that  the  second  and  longer  profession 
(c.  120)  was  composed  on  this  occasion  by  Epiphanius  himself,  while 
the  first  and  shorter  one  (c.  119)  is  a  baptismal  creed  of  earlier 
origin  and  was  introduced  as  such  into  the  metropolitan  see  of  Con- 
stantia,  not  long  before  the  election  of  St.  Epiphanius.  It  was  then 
accepted  with  a  few  modifications  by  the  Second  Ecumenical  Council 
of  Constantinople  (381)  and  became  thereby  the  Profession  of  faith 
of  the  Universal  Church,  indeed  the  baptismal  creed  of  the  whole  East. 
Two  readers  of  the  ayxupajvog,  Acacius  and  Paulus,  found  it  so 
interesting  and  useful  that  they  begged  the  author  for  a  more  detailed 
and  exhaustive  work  on  the  systems  of  the  heretics.  It  was  thus 
that  he  came  to  write  (374 — 377)  the  «medecine-chest»,  Ttavaptov  or 
navdpia,  against  eighty  heresies2,  usually  cited  as  Haereses.  The 
work  proposes  to  furnish  an  antidote  to  those  who  have  been  bitten 
by  the  serpent  of  heresy  and  to  protect  those  whose  faith  has  re- 
mained sound.  Epiphanius  reckons  among  the  heresies  also  the  Greek 
philospohical  schools  and  the  religious  sects  of  the  Jews,  so  that 
twenty  of  the  above-mentioned  heresies  belong  to  a  pre-Christian 
period.  He  is  indebted  to  SS.  Justin,  Irenseus  and  Hippolytus  for 
his  description  of  the  earlier  heresies,  and  often  for  the  very  words 
he  uses.  His  accounts  of  the  later  heresies  are  drawn  from  many 
scattered  sources  and  offer  rich  historical  materials,  although  his  cre- 
dulity and  lack  of  critical  acumen  are  often  only  too  patent.  He  pro- 
bably borrowed  the  number  of  «eighty»  heresies  from  the  «four 
score   concubines»    in    the   Canticle    of  canticles   (vi.   7).     The   work 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xliii.   17 — 236.  2  Ib.,  xli  xlii. 


§    71.      ST.    EPIPHANIUS.  313 

closes  with  a  synoptic  exposition  of  the  Catholic  and  Apostolic 
Church  (aovvofjLOQ  dhjd-yjQ  h'tyoq  rtep\  mtazecoQ  xatiofax'Tjc,  xai  ä7ZOGToAixrJQ 
exxlrjaiac).  We  must  perhaps  attribute  to  a  later  hand  an  epitome 
of  this  work,  avaxepaAatcocrig1,  containing  the  text  of  passages  that 
seemed  especially  important. 

3.  BIBLICO  -  ARCHAEOLOGICAL  WRITINGS.  SPURIOUS  WRITINGS. 
LETTERS.  —  Very  valuable  for  the  science  of  introduction  to  the 
Sacred  Scriptures  is  the  work  on  Weights  and  Measures,  nep\  pezpcov 
xai  (TTa&jucov,  that  he  composed  at  Constantinople  in  392  for  a  Persian 
priest.  The  first  part  treats  of  the  canon  and  versions  of  the  Old 
Testament,  the  second  describes  the  biblical  weights  and  measures,  and 
the  third  treats  of  the  geography  of  Palestine.  The  title,  therefore,  does 
not  correspond  with  the  contents ;  and  the  entire  work  looks  more  like 
a  collection  of  notes  ad  sketches  rather  than  a  finished  composition. 
Of  the  Greek  text  only  the  first  twenty- four  chapters  are  extant2; 
sixty  other  chapters  were  found  in  a  Syriac  version  edited  by  de 
Lagarde  and  translated  by  him  into  German  (and  Greek).  The  treatise 
on  the  Twelve  precious  stones,  nsp\  rcov  iß'  Xi&ajv,  in  the  breast- 
plate of  the  high  priest3  of  the  Old  Testament,  is  dedicated  to 
Diodorus  of  Tarsus  and  has  reached  us  in  two  recensions,  a  shorter 4 
and  a  longer  one5  which  latter  has  reached  us  only  in  Latin. 
Other  biblico-exegetical  writings  of  Epiphanius  have  perished.  A  com- 
mentary on  the  Canticle  of  canticles,  extant  in  a  Latin  version  and 
formerly  attributed  to  Epiphanius,  is  now  known  not  to  be  his;  the  Greek 
text  of  the  work,  edited  by  Giacomelli,  claims  to  be  from  the  hand 
of  Philo,  bishop  of  Carpasia  (or  Carpasium)  in  Cyprus  who  flourished 
in  the  early  part  of  the  fifth  century,  and  is  now  generally  held 
to  be  a  work  of  the  latter.  A  little  work  on  the  birth  and  burial 
places  of  all  the  prophets,  preserved  in  two  different  recensions6, 
filled  with  impossible  fables,  is  certainly  spurious.  Similarly,  the  Physio- 
logus  (or  a  recension  of  it),  elg  xbv  (pooioXoyov ,  the  mediaeval  lexi- 
con or  thesaurus  of  the  natural  sciences7;  seven  homilies8,  the  last 
of  them  extant  in  Latin  only,  and  several  other  writings  are  un- 
doubtedly spurious.  Of  his  numerous  letters  only  two  have  reached 
us,  and  those  in  a  Latin  version9,  one  to  John  of  Jerusalem,  the  other 
to  St.  Jerome,  both  pertaining  to  the  Origenistic  controversies.  Pitra 
published  in  1888  Greek  fragments  of  a  third  letter.  The  style  of 
Epiphanius  is  careless,  languid,  and  most  verbose. 

4.  works  on  epiphanius.  —  There  is  more  legend  than  history  in 
the  life  of  Epiphanius  said  to  have  been  written  by  his  disciples  Johannes 
and  Polybius  [Migne,    PG.;  xli).     B.  Eberhard ,   Die  Beteiligung   des   Epi- 

1  Ib.,  xlii.  833—886.  2  lb.,   xliii.  237—293. 

3  Ex.  xxviii.   17 — 21  ;  xxxix.    10 — 14.  4  Migne,  PG.,  xliii.  293 — 304. 

5  lb.,  xliii.  321 — 366.  6  Ib.,  xliii.   393 — 413  415 — 428. 

7  Ib.,  xliii.  517 — 533.  8  Ib.,  xliii.  428 — 508.  9  lb.,  xliii.  379 — 392. 


314  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

phanius  an  dem  Streite  über  Origenes,  Trier,  1859.  AI.  Vincenzi,  Historia 
critica  quaestionis  inter  Theophilum,  Epiphanium  et  Hieronymum,  Ori- 
genis  adversaries,  et  inter  Joh.  Chrysostomtim ,  Theotimum,  Ruffinum  et 
monachos  Nitrienses,  Origenis  patronos  (In  S.  Gregorii  Nysseni  et  Origenis 
scripta  et  doctrinam  nova  recensio),  Rome,   1865,  iii. 

5.     EDITIONS,    COMPLETE    AND    SPECIAL.       TRANSLATIONS.    —    The    Original 

text  of  the  Ancoratus ,  the  Panarium  and  its  Epitome ,  with  the  De  men- 
suris  et  ponderibus  was  first  published  by  J.  Oporinus ,  Basel,  1544.  The 
best  complete  edition,  though  in  many  ways  rather  faulty,  is  that  of  D.  Pe- 
tavius  (Petau) ,  S.  J.,  Paris,  1622,  2  vols.  An  enlarged  reprint  of  this 
I  edition  appeared  at  Cologne  (thus  in  title,  really  at  Leipzig,  1682).  It  is 
I  reprinted  with  corrections  and  additions  in  Mlgne,  PG.,  xli — xliii,  Paris,  1858. 
In  the  edition  of  W.  Dindorf,  Epiphanii  episc.  Constantiae  opera,  ed.  G.  D., 
Leipzig,  1859 — 1862,  5  vols.,  the  Greek  text  has  been  somewhat  improved, 
but  no  Latin  translation  is  given ;  of  the  spurious  writings  it  contains  only 
the  seven  homilies  and  the  tractate  De  numerorum  mysteriis  [Migne,  PG., 
xliii.  507  —  518).  The  «Ancoratus»  and  the  «Epitome  of  the  Panarion»  were 
translated  into  German  by  C.  Wolfsgruber  (1880),  in  the  Kempten  Bibliothek 
der  Kirchenväter.  —  Separate  Editions,  a)  Polemical  works :  S.  Epiphanii 
episc.  Constantiensis  Panaria  eorumque  Anacephalaeosis.  Ad  veteres  libros 
recensuit  et  cum  latina  Dion.  Petavii  interpretatione  et  integris  eius  animad- 
versionibus  edidit  Fr.  (Dehler,  Berlin,  1859 — 1861  (Corporis  haereseologici 
1  ii.  1  23;  iii.  1).  Portions  of  the  Panarium  (Epiphanii  varia  de  Graecorum 
(  sectis  excerpta)  are  printed  in  H.  Diels,  Doxographi  graeci,  Berlin,  1879, 
PP-  5^5 — 593  \  cf-  PP-  I75  — 177.  An  old  Armenian  recension  of  the 
Anacephalaeosis  was  edited  with  commenta  by  A.  Dashian,  Kurze  biblio- 
graphische Studien,  Untersuchungen  und  Texte,  Vienna,  1895,  i.  (modern 
Armenian),  76 — 146.  R.  A.  Lipsius ,  Zur  Quellenkritik  des  Epiphanios, 
Vienna,  1865.  Id.,  Die  Quellen  der  ältesten  Ketzergeschichte  neu  untersucht, 
Leipzig,  1875.  Thie  two  Creeds  published  by  Caspari  at  the  end  of  the 
«Ancoratus»  were  discussed  by  him  in  some  Danish  articles  whose  contents 
he  summarizes  in  his  Ungedruckte  Quellen  zur  Gesch.  des  Taufsymbols 
und  der  Glaubensregel  1,  Christiania,  1886,  p.  vii;  cf.  ib.,  pp.  8 — 16.  — 
b)  Biblico-archaeological  works  etc. :  Metrologicorum  scriptorum  reliquiae. 
Collegit  recensuit  partim  nunc  primum  edidit  Fr.  Hultsch,  Leipzig,  1864 
to  1866,  2  vols.  I.  (Script.  Graeci),  pp.  259 — 267  :  Excerpta  ex  Epiphanii 
libro  de  mensuris  et  ponderibus.  IL  (Script.  Romani),  pp.  100 — 106:  Vetus 
versio  traetatus  Epiphaniani  de  mensuris  et  ponderibus.  P.  de  Lagarde, 
Symmikta,  Göttingen,  1877,  pp.  209 — 225:  Epiphaniana  (too  cqiou  'Etii- 
«paviou  itspt  [AETpcov  v.7.1  <rcaic)]Aü)v).  Id.,  Veteris  Testamenti  ab  Origene  re- 
censiti  fragmenta  apud  Syros  servata  quinque.  Praemittitur  Epiphanii  de 
mensuris  et  ponderibus  liber  nunc  primum  integer  et  ipse  syriacus.  P.  de 
Lagarde  edidit,  Gott.,  1880.  P.  de  Lagarde,  Symmikta,  Göttingen,  1880, 
ii.  149 — 216:  Des  Epiphanius  Buch  über  Masse  und  Gewichte  zum  ersten- 
mal vollständig.  Lagarde  translated  into  German  (and  Greek)  those  portions 
of  the  text  that  have  reached  us  only  in  the  Syriac  version.  G.  Mercati, 
L'eta  di  Simmaco  l'interprete  e  S.  Epifanio,  Modena,  1892 ;  Id.,  Sul  canone 
biblico  di  S.  Epifanio  (De  mens,  et  pond.,  c.  23),  in  Note  di  letteratura 
biblica  e  cristiana  antica  (Studi  e  Testi  v),  Rome,  1 901,  pp.  17  —  27.  The 
Latin  version  of  the  treatise  «On  the  twelve  precious  stones»  is  found  at 
the  end  of  the  Collectio  Avellana  (§  114,  7),  ed.  Günther,  pp.  743 — 773. 
Two  recensions  of  the  Greek  text  of  the  little  work  on  the  prophets  are 
printed  in  F.  Nestle,  Marginalien  und  Materialien,  Tübingen,  1893,  part  II, 
pp.  1  —  64;  and  the  Syriac  text  (e  tribus  codicibus  Musei  Britannici),  in 
F.  Nestle ,    Syrische  Grammatik,  Berlin,   1888,  Chrestomatie,  pp.  86 — 107. 


§    72-      DIODORUS    OF    TARSUS.  315 

For  a  critical  edition  of  the  Physiologus  see  Fr.  Laudiert ,  Geschichte 
des  Physiologus,  Strassburg,  1889,  pp.  229  —  279.  The  pertinent  «literature» 
of  the  Physiologus  may  be  found  in  K.  Krumbacher  (Gesch.  der  byzantini- 
schen Litteratur,  2.  ed.,  München,  1903,  pp.  874  ff.).  Two  fragments  of 
an  otherwise  unknown  letter  were  edited  by  Pitra,  in  Analecta  sacra  et 
classica  (1888),  part  I,  pp.  72 — 73.  A.  Condamin ,  Saint  Epiphane  a-t-il 
admis  la  legitimite  du  divorce  pour  adultere?  in  Bullet,  de  lett.  eccles. 
(1900),  iii.   16 — 21   (negatively). 

6.  JOHN    (il.)    OF  JERUSALEM.     THEOPHILUS    OF    ALEXANDRIA.    —    For  John 

(see  no.  1),  bishop  of  Jerusalem  (about  386 — 417),  see  C.  P.  Caspari,  Un- 
gedruckte Quellen  zur  Gesch.  des  Taufsymbols  und  der  Glaubensregel, 
Christiania,  1866,  i.  161 — 212:  «Ein  Glaubensbekenntnis  des  Bischofs  Jo- 
hannes von  Jerusalem  (386—417)  in  syrischer  Übersetzung  aus  einer  nitri- 
schen  Handschrift  des  British  Museum,  samt  allem,  was  uns  sonst  von  Jo- 
hannes übrig  geblieben».  —  Theophilus  (see  no.  i),  385 — 412  patriarch 
of  Alexandria,  is  characterized  by  Gibbon  (c.  28)  as  «the  perpetual  enemy 
of  peace  and  virtute;  a  bold,  bad  man  whose  hands  were  alternately 
polluted  with  gold  and  with  blood  (The  history  of  the  decline  and  fall  of 
the  Roman  Empire.  By  E.  Gibbon.  Edited  by  W.  Smith,  London,  1854, 
iii.  418).  He  wrote  some  festal  letters  (§  63,  7)  and  other  ecclesiastical 
documents,  also  an  extensive  (lost)  work  against  the  Origenists  and  Anthropo- 
morphites.  For  the  fragments  see  Gallandi  (Bibl.  vet.  Patr.  vii.  601  to 
652)  and  the  excerpts  therefrom  in  Migne,  PG.,  lxv,  ^ — 68.  Cf.  Pitra, 
Juris  eccles.  Graecorum  hist,  et  monura.,  Rome,  1864,  i.  646 — 649:  Theo- 
phili  Alexandrini  canones.  A  few  additions  to  Gallandi  and  Migne  are 
found  in  Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  und 
der  altkirchl.  Literatur,  Erlangen,   1883,  ii.  234  ff. 

7.  phtlo  of  carpasia.  —  Philo  (see  no.  3),  usually  known  as  bishop 
of  Carpasia  (or  Carpasium,  in  Cyprus),  according  to  others  bishop  of  Car- 
pathus  (an  island  between  Crete  and  Rhodus),  has  hitherto  enjoyed  but 
slight  repute  as  a  Christian  writer.  The  Greek  text  of  his  Enarratio  in 
Canticum  canticorum  was  first  published  by  M.  A.  Giacomelli ,  Rome, 
1772  (reprinted  in  Gallandi,  1.  c,  ix,  and  in  Migne,  PG.,  xl).  For  some 
other  fragments  attributed  to  Philo  see  Fabricius- Hartes ,  Biblioth.  Gr.,  iv. 
751 — 752  ;  x.  479,  An  ascetical  letter  of  Philo  was  edited  by  A.  Papadopulos- 
Kerameus ,   in  'AvoOlsxta    lepoaroXujJUTix^c   ara/u 0x071a? ,    St.  Petersburg,    1891, 

PP-  393—399- 

§  72.     Diodorus  of  Tarsus. 

I.  LIFE  OF  DIODORUS.  —  Diodorus,  made  in  378  bishop  of  Tarsus 
in  Cilicia,  where  he  died  before  394,  belonged  to  one  of  the  noblest 
families  of  Antioch.  The  highly  gifted  and  industrious  youth  acquired 
in  the  schools  of  Athens  and  his  native  city  a  solid  training  in  every 
branch  of  human  and  sacred  science.  At  the  same  time  he  strove  to 
reach  the  ideal  of  Christian  perfection  by  a  life  of  ascetic  severity. 
According  to  Socrates 1  and  Sozomen 2  he  divided  with  Carterius  the 
government  of  a  monastic  community  (aaxyrypioyj  in  Antioch  or  in 
the  neighborhood  of  that  city.  The  highest  tribute  to  the  merits 
of  Diodorus  was  paid  in  a  letter  written  by  Julian  the  Apostate  and 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  3.  2  Hist,  eccl.,  viii.  2. 


3l6  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

published  at  a  later  date  (545 — 551)  by  Facundus  of  Hermiane1: 
Diodorus,  he  said,  had  equipped  his  malevolent  tongue  against  the 
ancient  gods  with  the  wisdom  of  Athens  herself;  in  return,  his  gaunt 
figure  and  pale  face,  together  with  his  wretched  health,  were  so  many 
evidences  of  the  anger  of  the  Olympians.  The  emperor's  hate  had  for  its 
source  the  active  and  self-sacrificing  labors  of  Diodorus  in  defence  of 
the  Christian  faith,  notably  of  the  Nicene  Creed.  The  circumstances  of 
the  time  imposed,  at  Antioch,  on  the  writings  of  Diodorus  a  strongly 
polemic  and  apologetic  character.  Here,  the  Arians  and  the  orthodox 
Catholics  stood  arrayed  one  against  the  other  in  sharp  conflict,  the 
former  enjoying  the  imperial  favor,  first  under  Constantius  (337  to 
361),  and  then  under  Valens  (364 — 378).  In  his  short  reign  Julian 
did  all  in  his  power  to  restore  the  abandoned  worship  of  the  gods. 
As  his  winter  quarters  were  at  Antioch,  during  the  unfortunate  Per- 
sian campaign,  his  influence  was  proximate  and  perilous.  In  all  these 
years,  especially  during  the  administration  of  the  Arian  bishop  Leontius 
(f  about  357),  and  still  more  during  the  exile  of  the  patriarch  Meletius 
(360 — 378),  it  was  Diodorus  and  his  friend  Flavian  (elected  in 
381  successor  of  Meletius)  who,  amid  many  sacrifices  and  dangers, 
cared  for  the  spiritual  welfare  of  the  Syrian  metropolis.  «Flavian 
and  Diodorus»,  writes  Theodoret2,  «rose  like  two  great  rocks  in  the 
ocean,  on  the  firm  sides  of  which  the  towering  waves  broke  in  vain.  .  .  . 
Diodorus,  wise  and  strong,  was  like  a  broad,  clear  river,  the  waters  of 
which  slaked  the  thirst  of  his  own  people,  but  swept  away  the  blas- 
phemies of  his  enemies.  He  esteemed  as  of  no  account  the  splendor  of 
his  own  origin,  and  for  the  sake  of  the  faith  bore  tribulation  with  joy». 
In  372  he  had  to  fly  from  Antioch,  and  sojourned  for  a  time  with 
Meletius  in  Armenia.  There  he  entered  into  relations  with  Basil  the 
Great3.  When  Meletius  returned  to  his  see  (378),  the  veteran  soldier  of 
the  faith  was  made  bishop  of  Tarsus.  In  this  capacity  he  took  part 
in  the  Second  Ecumenical  Council  at  Constantinople  (381).  In  the  im- 
perial edict  confirmatory  of  the  Council's  decrees,  Pelagius  of  Lao- 
dicea  and  Diodorus  of  Tarsus  are  mentioned  as  the  reliable  arbiters 
of  orthodoxy. 

2.  HIS  WRITINGS.  —  Diodorus  was  a  very  copious  writer ;  indeed, 
as  a  rule  all  the  Antiochene  theologians  displayed  great  industry  in 
biblical  exegesis.  According  to  Leontius  of  Byzantium4  he  wrote 
commentaries  on  the  entire  Bible  (see  the  catalogue  of  his  commen- 
taries by  Suzdas)5.  Apparently  only  a  few  remnants  of  these  labors 
have  reached  us.  At  least  it  is  only  from  the  Catenae  that  the 
more  or  less  abundant  scholia  on  the  Septuagint  text  principally 
of  Genesis  and  Psalms  li — lxxiv,  lxxxi — xcv  have  been  rescued. 
Diodorus  was   a  strenuous  opponent  of  the  mystico-allegorical  inter- 

1  Pro  defens.  trium  capitum,  iv.  2.  2  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.   22. 

3  Basil.,  Ep.   135.  4  De  sectis,  iv.   3.  5  Lex.  s.  v.  Diod. 


§    7 2-      DIODORUS    OF    TARSUS.  7>l7 

pretation  peculiar  to  the  Alexandrines  and  endeavored  to  establish 
firmly  the  historico-grammatical  method.  His  treatise  «On  the  dif» 
ference  between  theory  and  allegory»  (rig  btatpopa  &  scop  tag  xat 
äXXrjyopiag)  is  unhappily  known  to  us  only  through  the  mention 
of  its  title 1.  He  certainly  developed  therein  his  hermeneutic  prin- 
ciples, and  very  probably  refuted  the  Origenistic  exegesis  (dXXrj- 
yopia) ,  which  denied  or  pared  away  the  literal  sense.  In  oppo- 
sition to  this  tendency  he  developed  the  prophetico-typical  exposition 
of  Scripture  fftecopia),  in  which  the  literal  sense  is  always  presup- 
posed and  preserved,  while  the  historical  foundation  of  Scripture 
is  never  abandoned.  He  wrote  other  works  of  a  dogmatic ,  po- 
lemic and  apologetic  nature.  Suidas2  mentions  writings  nep\  too 
elg  ttebg  ev  zptddt,  xara  MsX^taedzxtrcbv,  xara  Voudatcov,  izept  vexpcov 
dvaozdcrscog,  Trap}  (pOjpJQ  xara  otacpopcov,  mp\  adzyg  acpicrscov,  and 
others.  Most  of  these  works  are  known  to  us  only  by  their  titles. 
His  extensive  work  against  Fate,  xara  eipappe^Q,  known  to  Suidas 
as  xara  darpouopcov  xat  darpoXoycov  xat  etfiappev/jg,  was  extensively 
quoted  and  described  at  length  by  Photius 3.  Elsewhere 4  Photius  also 
mentions  a  work  against  the  Manichseans  not  found  in  the  list  of 
Suidas;  from  another  work,  likewise  overlooked  by  Suidas,  against 
the  Synousiasts  or  Apollinarists,  some  excerpts  have  been  saved  by 
Leontius  of  Byzantium  5. 

3.  HIS  DOCTRINE.  —  During  the  Christological  controversies  of 
the  fifth  and  sixth  centuries,  Diodorus  acquired  an  unenviable  noto- 
riety. While  living  he  was  esteemed  a  pillar  of  orthodoxy,  but  after 
his  death  was  himself  accused  of  heresey.  There  is  no  doubt  that 
his  teachings  contain  the  germs  of  those  errors  that  his  disciple 
Theodore  was  one  day  to  nourish  and  develop  until  they  became 
that  Nestorianism  which  the  Church  rejected.  In  his  efforts  to  defend 
against  the  Arians  the  true  divinity  and  against  the  Apollinarists  the 
true  humanity  of  Christ,  he  so  weakened  the  union  of  the  divine  and 
the  human  in  Our  Lord,  that  it  became  a  mere  indwelling,  evotxymg, 
of  the  Logos  in  a  man  (as  in  a  temple  or  in  a  garment).  While 
his  actual  opinions  cannot  now  be  stated  with  certainty,  it  remains 
true  that  he  taught  the  existence  of  a  double  hypostasis  in  Christ; 
he  must  not,  however,  be  accused  of  formal  heresy.  As  early  as 
438  Cyril  of  Alexandria  wrote  three  books  (of  which  some  fragments 
are  extant)  against  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  and  Diodorus  of  Tarsus 
whom  he  accused  of  being  the  originators  of  the  teaching  of  Nestorius. 
Leontius  of  Byzantium  makes  Diodorus  the  founder  and  father  of  the 
depravity  and  impiety  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia 6.  Photius  remarks 
that  in  his  discussion  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  7tep\  too 
dyioo  TiVEuparog  dtd<popa  snr/stp-fjpara,   Diodorus  bewrays  already  the 

1  Suidas,  1.  c.  2  L.  c.  3  Bibl.  Cod.   223.  *  lb.   85. 

5  Adv.  Nest,  et  Eut.,  iii.  43.  6  Ib.,  iii.  9. 


3 18  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

taint  of  Nestorianism1.     Photius   must  err,    however,    when  he  says2 
that  Diodorus  was  anathematized  by  the  Fifth  General  Council  in  553. 

4.  literature  on  diodorus.  —  The  exegetical  fragments  of  Diodorus 
are  found  in  Migne,  PG.,  xxxiii:  Fragmenta  in  Genesim  (1561 — 1580),  in 
Exodum  (1579  — 1586),  in  Deuteronomium  (1585 — 1586),  in  librum  Iudi- 
cum  (1587 — 1588),  in  Regum  primum  (1587 — 1588),  all  taken  from  the 
Catena  of  Nicephorus  on  the  Octateuch  and  the  Books  of  Kings,  Leipzig, 
1772 — 1773;  finally  Fragmenta  in  Psalmos  li— lxxiv  Ixxi — xcv  [Migne, 
I.e.  1587  — 1628),  from  Mai,  Nova  Patrum  Bibl.,  vi  2,  240 — 258,  and  from 
the  Catena  on  the  Psalms,  published  by  B.  Corderius,  Antwerp,  1643  to 
1646.  23  Latin  scholia  to  Exodus  which  are,  however,  both  insignificant 
and  of  doubtful  authenticity,  were  overlooked  by  Pitra ,  Spicilegium 
Solesmense,  Paris,  1852,  i.  269—275.  Nevertheless,  the  fragments  in 
Migne  are  much  in  need  of  criticism.  For  the  treatise  tic  Siacpopa 
ttecupiac  xal  aXArjYGpia?  see  H.  Kihn,  Über  Oewpia  und  äXkrflopia  nach  den 
verlorenen  hermeneutischen  Schriften  der  Antiochener,  in  Theol.  Quartal- 
schrift (1880),  lxii.  531  —  582.  For  dogmatic  fragments  of  Diodorus  in 
Syriac  see  P.  de  Lagarde ,  Analecta  Syriaca,  Leipzig  and  London,  1858, 
pp.  91 — 100.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  de  Lagarde  was  never  able  to 
carry  out  his  promise  (1.  c,  p.  xix)  to  execute  a  complete  edition  of  all  the 
fragments  of  the  writings  of  Diodorus.  Cf.  Harnack,  Diodor  von  Tarsus. 
Vier  pseudojustinische  Schriften  als  Eigentum  Diodors  nachgewiesen,  in 
Texte  und  Untersuchungen ,  new  series,  Leipzig.  1901,  vi.  69 — 230,  with 
a  German  translation  of  nearly  all  the  four  Pseudo-Justin  writings  that  he 
ascribes  to  Diodorus ;  F.  X.  Funk,  Le  pseudo-Justin  et  Diodore  de  Tarse, 
in  Revue  d'histoire  ecclesiastique  (1902),  iii.  947  —  971  (rejects  Harnack's 
thesis  of  the  authorship  of  Diodorus). 

5.  Flavian  of  antioch.  —  Flavian  (see  no.  1),  who  was  made  in  381 
Patriarch  of  Antioch,  died  in  404.  He  left  some  writings  that  are  now 
known  to  us  only  by  occasional  mention  in  later  works.  Theodoret  of 
Cyrus  quotes  from  his  homilies  (Dial.  i.  66,  ed.  Schulze ;  ii.  160;  iii.  250  f.) 
and  mentions  a  commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  Luke  (ib.,  ii.  160)  and  perhaps 
(i.  46)  a  commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  John.  For  other  quotations  that 
might  be  easily  multiplied,  cf.  E.  Venables,  in  Smith  and  Wace,  A  Diet,  of 
Christian  Biography,  ii.  531. 

§  73.    Theodore  of  Mopsuestia. 

I.  HIS  LIFE.  —  Theodore,  whom  we  have  frequently  mentioned 
as  a  disciple  of  Diodorus,  was  also  born  at  Antioch,  about  350,  of 
rich  and  noble  parents.  He  studied  rhetoric  and  literature  under  the 
famous  sophist  Libanius ;  among  his  fellow  disciples  was  the  somewhat 
older  John,  known  to  later  ages  as  Chrysostomus.  It  was  the  ambition 
of  Theodore  to  become  a  lawyer  and  in  that  way  to  acquire  both 
honors  and  wealth.  But  the  example  and  the  advice  of  his  friend 
induced  him,  before  his  twentieth  year,  to  retire  to  the  monastery 
of  Diodorus  and  Carterius.  Here  he  magnanimously  gave  up  all 
worldly  attractions  and  pleasures,  and  turned  with  earnestness  to 
a  life  of  ascetism  and  the  study  of  the  Scriptures.  Soon,  however, 
his   zeal   relaxed.     He   abandoned   his   solitude  for  the  noisy  clamor 

1  Bibl.  Cod.   102.  2  lb.   18. 


§    73-      THEODORE    OF    MOPSUESTIA.  319 

of  the  forum,  and  also  wished  to  exchange  his  monastic  vows  for 
the  married  state.  It  was  only  the  eloquent  letter  of  St.  Chryso- 
stom  that  induced  him  to  abandon  this  purpose  and  return  to 
his  monastery1.  About  383  he  was  ordained  priest  by  Flavian, 
bishop  of  Antioch,  and  for  the  next  ten  years  was  occupied  in  his 
native  city  as  a  worker  in  the  pastoral  ministry  and  a  learned  writer. 
He  had  long  been  known  as  a  vigorous  defender  of  the  doctrines 
of  the  Church  against  the  current  heresies  when,  about  392,  he  was 
consecrated  bishop  of  Mopsuestia  in  Cilicia.  Here,  äs  far  as  we  can 
learn  from  the  extant  sources  of  information,  he  took  an  active  part 
in  all  the  movements  and  events  that  make  up  the  contemporary 
history  of  the  Church  in  the  East.  Chrysostom  himself  tells  us 
that  the  bishop  of  Mopsuestia  was  a  staunch  defender  of  the  friend 
of  his  youth2.  He  died  about  428  after  a  pastoral  activity  of  36  years, 
as  Theodoret  expressly  states3. 

2.  HIS  EXEGETICAL  WRITINGS.  HERMENEUTIC  PRINCIPLES.  LIMI- 
TATION OF  CANON.  —  Theodore  was  scarcely  twenty  years  of  age 
when  he  had  composed  a  commentary  on  the  Psalms.  There  are 
still  extant  in  manuscript  Syriac  and  Latin  epitomes  of  this  com- 
mentary; not  a  few  large  fragments  of  the  Greek  text  have  also 
reached  us.  In  this  work  he  set  himself  to  illustrate  with  all  pos- 
sible precision  the  grammatico-historical  method  of  scriptural  inter- 
pretation; all  allegorizing  was  sternly  put  aside,  and  the  titles  of 
the  Psalms  declared  posterior  additions.  He  held  to  the  Davidic 
authorship  of  all  the  Psalms,  but  admitted  only  four  as  directly  Mes- 
sianic in  their  import  (Ps.  2  8  45  no,  Septuagint  text);  nineteen 
referred  to  David  and  his  time,  one  to  Jeremias,  twenty-five  to  the 
Assyrian  and  sixty-seven  to  the  Chaldaic  period,  seventeen  to  the  age 
of  the  Maccabees;  for  seventeen  others  he  was  unable  to  furnish 
an  historical  exposition,  and  looked  on  them  as  didactic  poems. 
Such  a  treatment  of  the  Psalms  was  calculated  to  call  forth  sharp 
remonstrances  and  lively  hostility.  In  later  writings  he  explicitly  retracted 
some  of  his  views,  yet  not  so  as  to  satisfy  the  necessary  demands 
of  the  Church  in  matters  of  faith.  In  553  the  Fifth  General  Council4 
rejected  his  indirect  (typical)  exposition  of  Psalms  16  22  69  (Sep- 
tuagint text);  it  was  taken,  however,  not  from  his  Psalm-commentary 
but  from  a  (lost)  dedicatory  letter  prefixed  to  his  commentary  on 
the  twelve  minor  prophets.  In  the  Psalm-commentary  he  had  not 
recognized  in  the  last  mentioned  Psalms  even  a  typical  reference  to 

1  Cf.  the  two  books  or  letters  of  St.  Chrysostom  Ad  Theodorum  lapsum  (§  74,  8), 
and  the  reply  of  Theodore  {Migne,  PC,  xlviii.  1063—1066;  the  authenticity  of  this 
reply  is  doubted. 

2  Ep.   112;  cf  Facuvdus  Herrn.,  Pro  defens.  trium.  capitum,  vii.   7. 

3  Hist,  eccl.,  v.   39. 

4  Coll.  iv,  n.   21—24:  Mansi,  SS.  Cone.  Coll.,  ix.  211— 213. 


320  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

the  Messiah.  This  commentary  on  the  twelve  minor  prophets  de- 
dicated to  a  certain  Tyrius  (Martyrius?)  is  the  only  one  of  the  writ- 
ings of  Theodore  (the  dedication  excepted)  that  has  reached  us  in 
the  original  text,  probably  because  it  gave  less  offence  than  his 
other  writings.  The  Fifth  General  Council  anathematized *  his  ex- 
position and  criticism  of  Job  and  the  Canticle  of  canticles ,  also  his 
theory  on  the  authority  of  Proverbs  and  Ecclesiastes  (according  to 
others  of  Ecclesiasticus).  The  book  of  Job ,  he  declared ,  was  the 
work  of  an  ambitious  Jew,  desirous  of  imitating  the  dramas  of  the 
pagan  poets;  the  Canticle  of  canticles  was  an  epithalamium  composed 
on  the  occasion  of  Solomon's  wedding  with  an  Egyptian  princess. 
He  denied  that  the  author  of  Proverbs  and  Ecclesiastes  possessed 
the  gift  of  prophecy,  and  recognized  in  them  only  a  lower  degree 
of  inspiration.  Leontius  of  Byzantium  asserts 2  that  Theodore  refused 
to  accept  as  canonical  not  only  Job,  the  Canticle  of  canticles  and 
the  Psalm-titles,  but  also  the  third  and  fourth  Books  of  Kings,  with 
Esdras  and  Nehemias;  he  also  excluded  from  the  Canon  of  the 
New  Testament  the  Epistle  of  St.  James  and  «the  subsequent  Ca- 
tholic epistles  of  other  writers».  He  wrote  commentaries  after  the 
example  of  Diodorus  on  the  entire  Scripture3:  zrjv  oXtjv  fpatprp  utt- 
efj.vy){iu.Tiaav.  Indeed,  there  are  still  extant  under  his  name  fragments 
of  commentaries  on  the  whole  New  Testament.  The  commentary  on 
the  shorter  epistles  of  St.  Paul  (Galatians,  Ephesians,  Philippians,  Colos- 
sians,  First  and  Second  toThessalonians,  First  and  Second  to  Timothy, 
Philemon)  has  reached  us  in  its  entirety,  not,  however,  in  the  original 
Greek,  but  in  a  Latin  version,  probably  made  in  Africa  about  the 
middle  of  the  sixth  century.  His  commentary  on  the  Gospel  of 
St.  John  is  extant  in  Syriac.  As  early  as  the  fifth  century  the  writ- 
ings of  Theodore  were  translated  into  Syriac;  since  then  they  have 
always  been  highly  esteemed  by  the  Nestorians  of  Syria.  During 
the  sixth  and  seventh  centuries  their  synods  anathematized  all  those 
who  dared  in  any  way  to  differ  from  the  scriptural  interpretations  of 
«The  Exegete»,  an  honorable  title  that  still  clings  yjlt  e^oyfjv  to  his 
name  in  the  Nestorian  communities. 

3.  OTHER  WRITINGS.  CHRISTOLOGY.  DOCTRINE  ON  GRACE.  — 
Theodore  wrote  many  other  works,  and  among  them  several  of  a 
dogmatico-polemical  character.  We  still  possess  from  the  hand  of 
the  Nestorian  metropolitan  Ebedjesu  (f  13 18)  a  list  which  contains 
besides  the  exegetical  works,  those  writings  of  Theodore  acknowledged 
as  genuine  by  Syrian  Nestorians.  They  are  the  following :  a  Book  on 
the  mysteries,  one  on  the  faith  (very  probably  the  symbolum  *,  a  book 
on  the  priesthood,  two  on  the  Holy  Spirit,  one  on  the  Incarnation  fnepl 

1  Coll.  iv,  n.  63 — 71  :  Mansi,  1.  c,  ix.   223 — 227. 

2  Adv.  Nest,  et  Eut.,  iii.   12 — 17.  3  Leont.,  De  sectis,  iv.   3. 
*  Migne,  PG.,  lxvi.  1015 — 1020. 


§    73-      THEODORE    OF    MOPSUESTIA.  321 

v?jg  evavfrpcoTCTjOewQ)1 ,  two  against  Eunomius  (xaz  Euvoptou)2,  two 
against  those  who  maintained  that  sin  is  a  part  of  our  nature3 
frcpbg  TOUQ  Xiyovrag  <p6oei,  xac  od  yvcüfiT),  xräietu  robg  ävftpcüitoog),  two 
against  magic,  one  to  the  monks,  one  on  the  obscure  language  (of 
Scripture?),  one  on  the  perfection  of  works,  five  books  against  the 
Allegorists  (very  probably  the  book  De  allegoria  et  historia  contra 
Originem^,  one  in  favor  of  Basil  (unlp  Daadtiou  xarä  Eovo/iiou)5 
perhaps  identical  with  the  two  books  against  Eunomius  already  men- 
tioned, one  De  assumente  et  assumpto  (very  probably  the  work  against 
Apollinaris  often  referred  to  elsewhere),  a  «book  of  pearls»  i.  e.  a 
collection  of  letters  of  Theodore 6,  and  a  treatise  on  legislation 7.  We 
possess  at  present  only  isolated  fragments  of  these  works  but  enough, 
however,  to  make  it  certain  that  Theodore  was  a  Nestorius  before 
Nestorius.  Like  Diodorus  he  taught  that  in  Christ  there  were  two 
persons  (duo  bizoaTdazig).  The  divine  nature  is  a  person,  and  the 
human  nature  is  a  person.  The  unity  of  the  two  natures  (oovdcpzta) 
consists  in  the  community  of  thought  and  will.  The  Christian  adores 
one  sole  Lord  because  the  man  who  was  joined  to  the  Logos  in 
a  moral  union  was  raised,  in  reward  of  his  perseverance,  to  a  divine 
dignity  (ycop'tZw  rag  <puo~£tg,  kvcb  ttjv  Tipooxovqaiv).  But  the  properties 
and  the  activity  (as  well  as  the  suffering  of  the  humanity)  of  both 
natures  are  to  be  carefully  kept  apart.  Only  the  man  was  born  and 
died.  It  is  absurd  and  blasphemous  to  say  that  God  suffered,  trem- 
bled, shuddered.  Mary  cannot,  therefore,  be  called  the  Mother  of 
God,  or,  if  so,  only  in  an  improper  sense.  In  its  eighth  and  last 
session,  the  Fifth  General  Council  condemned  Theodore  and  his  im- 
pious writings,  and  in  its  anathematisms  also  individually  many  Christo- 
logical  theses  of  Theodore.  Theodore  also  met  with  contradiction 
for  his  anthropological  doctrine  and  his  teaching  concerning  grace. 
Marius  Mercator  is  unjust  towards  Theodore  when  he  accuses  him8 
of  being  the  father  of  Pelagianism.  Nevertheless,  the  doctrine  of 
Theodore  substantially  is  Pelagian;  for  he  denies  original  sin,  as  may 
be  seen  from  his  work  against  the  defenders  of  that  doctrine,  ex- 
cerpts from  which  can  be  read  in  Marius  Mercator  and  Photius. 

4.  editions  of  his  writings.  —  The  Migne  edition  of  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia  (PG.,  lxvi,  Paris,  1859 — 1864)  includes  the  following :  Commen- 
tarius  in  xii  prophetas  minores  (105 — 632),  and  Fragmenta  in  Genesim 
(633  —  646),  in  Exodum  (647 — 648),  in  Psalmos  (647—696),  in  Jobum 
(697 — 698),  in  Canticum  canticorum  (699 — 700);  Commentarii  in  Novum 
Testamentum  i.  e.  Fragmenta  in  Matth.  (703 — 714),  Marc.  (713 — 716), 
Luc.  (715— 728),  Io.  (727—786),  Acta  (785— 786),  Ep.  ad  Rom.  (787— 876), 

1  Cynll.  Alex.,  Ep.   70.  2  Phot.,  Bibl.  Cod.    177.  3  lb. 

4  Facundus  Herrn.,  Pro  defens.  trium  capit.,  iii.  6.  5  Phot.,  Bibl.   Cod.  4. 

6  Ib.,  Cod.    177. 

7  The  catalogue  is  in  J.  S.  Assemani,  Bibl.   Orient.,  iii   1,   33 — 35. 

8  Comm.  adv.  haeresim  Pelagii,  praef. ;  Refut.  symboli  Theod.  Mops.,  praef.,  n.  2. 
Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  21 


322  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

i  Cor.  (877 — 894),  2  Cor.  (893 — 898),  Gal.  (897 — 912),  Eph.  (911 — 922), 
Phil.  (921—926),  Col.  (925—932),  1  Thess.  (931—934),  2  Thess.  (933—936), 
1  Tim.  (935—944),  2  Tim.  (945—948),  Tit.  (947—950),  Philem.  (949—950), 
Hebr.  (951 — 968);  finally  Fragmenta  dogmatica  (969 — 1020).  —  Since 
Migne's  time  the  number  of  fragments  has  considerably  increased.  For 
unedited  Syriac  excerpts  from  the  Psalm-commentary  cf.  Br.  Baethgen,  in 
Zeitschrift  f.  die  alttestamentl.  Wissenschaft  (1885),  v.  53 — 101.  New  Greek 
fragments  on  seventeen  Psalms  taken  from  the  Psalm-catena  of  B.  Corderius, 
Antwerp,  1643 — 1646,  may  be  seen  in  Baethgen,  1.  c.  (1886),  vi.  261 — 288; 
(1887),  vii.  1 — 60.  For  a  Latin  translation  of  the  Psalm-commentary  and 
other  Greek  fragments  in  manuscripts  of  the  Ambrosian  library  at  Milan 
see  G.  Mercati,  Un  palimpsesto  Ambrosiano  dei  Salmi  Esapli,  Turin,  1896; 
Alcune  note  di  letteratura  patristica,  Milan,  1898.  This  Latin  version 
was  edited  (in  large  part)  by  G.  Ascoli  from  the  Codice  Irlandese  dell' 
Ambrosiana,  in  Archivio  glottologico  italiano,  v.)  See  also  H.  Leitzmann,  Der 
Psalmenkommentar  Theodors  von  Mopsuestia,  in  Sitzungsberichte  der  kgl. 
preuss.  Akad.  der  Wissensch.  zu  Berlin,  1902,  pp.  334 — 346.  This  scholar 
discovered  the  original  Greek  of  the  commentary  on  Psalms  32  —  60.  The 
Latin  version  of  the  commentary  on  the  shorter  epistles  of  St.  Paul  was 
first  published,  but  with  many  gaps,  by  Pitra  (Spicilegium  Solesmense, 
Paris,  1852,  i.  49 — 159),  who  also  erroneously  attributed  it  to  Hilary  of 
Poitiers.  This  edition  was  reproduced  with  additional  Greek  fragments 
and  various  corrections  by  H.  B.  Swete,  Cambridge,  1880— 1882,  2  vols., 
who  also  reprinted  in  an  appendix  (ii.  289 — 339)  the  Fragmenta  dogma- 
tica. J.  B.  Chabot  edited  (Paris,  1897)  the  Syriac  version  of  the  Commen- 
tary on  the  Gospel  of  St.  John;  he  also  promised  a  Latin  version  of  the 
same.  Exegetical  and  dogmatical  fragments  in  Syriac  and  Latin  were 
published  by  E.  Sachau  (Leipzig,  1869),  especially  Fragmenta  commentarii 
in  Genesim,  and  Fragmenta  libri  de  incarnatione.  In  the  American  Journal 
of  Theology  (1898),  ii.  353 — 387,  E.  v.  Dobschiitz  published  the  Greek 
prologue  of  a  Commentary  on  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  that  is  probably 
the  work  of  Theodore. 

5.  works  on  Theodore.  —  O.  Er.  Britzsche  ,  De  Theodori  Mop- 
suesteni  vita  et  scriptis  commentatio  historica  theologica,  Halle.  1836 
[Migne,  PG.,  lxvi.  9 — 78).  Er.  A.  Specht,  Der  exegetische  Standpunkt  des 
Theodor  von  Mopsuestia  und  Theodoret  von  Kyros  in  der  Auslegung 
messianischer  Weissagungen  aus  ihren  Kommentaren  zu  den  kleinen  Pro- 
pheten dargestellt,  Munich,  1871.  H.  Kihn ,  Theodor  von  Mopsuestia 
und  Junilius  Afrikanus  als  Exegeten,  Freiburg,  1880.  H.  B.  Swete,  Theo- 
doras of  Mopsuestia,  in  Dictionary  of  Christian  Biography  (1887),  iv.  934 
to  948.  Th.  Zahn,  Das  Neue  Testament  Theodors  von  Mopsuestia,  in 
Neue  kirchl.  Zeitschr.  (1900),  xi.  788—806.  See  also  W.  Wright,  Syriac 
Literature,  London,   1894.    R.  Duval,  La  litterature  syriaque,  Paris,   1899. 

6.  polychronius.  —  Theodoret  ends  his  notice  on  Theodore  of  Mop- 
suestia (Hist,  eccl.,  v.  39)  with  the  words:  «His  brother  Polychronius  was 
an  excellent  pastor  (iicoqjuwvsv)  of  the  church  of  Apamea  and  was  dis- 
tinguished for  the  charm  of  his  discourse  as  well  as  for  the  splendor  of 
his  virtuous  life.»  Apamea,  without  any  qualification,  is  the  well-known 
city  in  Syria,  and  the  word  icotfta(vsiv  indicates,  of  course,  the  office  and 
dignity  of  a  bishop,  while  the  imperfect  tense  litoiftawtv  must  mean  that, 
when  Jheodoret  wrote  (about  428),  Polychronius  was  still  alive,  in  other 
words,  was  bishop  of  Apamea.  Polychronius  was  a  very  prolific  writer, 
and,  like  his  brother,  principally  in  the  field  of  exegesis.  Up  to  the  present, 
only  scattered  Scholia,  from  the  Catenae,  have  reached  us  under  his  name, 


§    74-      ST-   JOHN    CHRYSOSTOM.  323 

particularly  some  on  the  Book  of  Job  (edited  principally  by/3.  Junius,  Catena 
Graecorum  Patrum  in  beatum  Job,  London,  1637),  on  the  Book  of  Daniel 
(by  Mai,  Scriptorum  vet.  nova  coll.,  Rome,  1825,  part  2,  i.  105 — 160),  and 
on  Ezechiel  (by  Mai,  Nova  Patr.  Bibl.,  1854,  part  2,  vii.  92 — 127).  The 
Scholia  on  Daniel  and  Ezechiel  are  in  Migne ,  PG.,  clxii.  In  as  far  as 
can  be  judged  from  these  fragments,  Polychronius  must  be  ranked  among 
the  greatest  exegetes  of  Antioch  and  of  Greek  antiquity  in  general,  though 
his  exposition  bewrays  throughout  a  rationalizing  tendency  that  vividly 
recalls  his  brother  Theodore.  Only  little  light  is  thrown  upon  his  doctrinal 
views  by  the  extant  fragments ,  which,  however  in  no  way,  justify  the 
not  unnatural  suspicion  of  Nestorianism.  See  O.  Bardenhewer,  Polychronius, 
Bruder  Theodors  von  Mopsuestia  und  Bischof  von  Apamea,  Freiburg,   1879. 

§  74.     St.  John  Chrysostom. 

I.  HIS  LIFE  BEFORE  HIS  ORDINATION  TO  THE  PRIESTHOOD.  — 
John,  surnamed  Chrysostom  (Golden  Mouth),  was  born  at  Antioch, 
probably  in  344,  though  the  date  of  347  is  possible.  He  was  brought 
up  amid  surroundings  of  splendor  and  wealth1,  but  lost  his  father 
Secundus  while  still  an  infant2;  his  education  was  cared  for  by  his 
pious  mother  Anthusa.  He  sought  and  found  a  more  advanced 
training  from  the  philosopher  Andragathius  and  especially  the  rhe- 
torician Libanius,  the  famous  apologist  of  decadent  heathenism.  His 
inseparable  friend  was  a  certain  Basil.  «We  pursued  the  same 
sciences»,  he  writes  himself3,  «and  listened  also  to  the  same  teachers. 
Our  devotion  and  our  enthusiasm  for  the  studies  that  we  followed  were 
the  same,  our  aspirations  were  alike  and  they  arose  from  the  same 
motives.  For  this  concord  of  sentiments  was  made  plain  not  only 
while  we  were  at  school,  but  even  after  we  had  left  it  and  gone 
forth  to  decide  on  our  future  career.»  His  own  inclination  and  the 
example  of  his  friend  moved  Chrysostom  to  renounce  both  theatre 
and  forum,  and  to  devote  himself  in  retirement  to  prayer  and  the 
study  of  the  Scriptures.  He  made  a  profound  study  of  Christian 
doctrine  under  the  guidance  of  Meletius,  patriarch  of  Antioch,  by 
whom  he  was  baptized  about  369,  it  being  customary  at  that  time 
to  put  off  baptism  to  a  mature  age.  He  had  also  for  masters  Dio- 
dorus,  afterwards  bishop  of  Tarsus,  and  Carterius.  It  was  his  purpose 
to  quit  the  paternal  roof  and  take  refuge  in  the  desert  with  his 
friend  Basil,  but  he  yielded,  however,  to  the  prayers  of  his  mother, 
who  begged  him  not  to  make  her  again  a  widow.  Nevertheless,  he 
withdrew  completely  from  the  world  and  led  a  life  of  strict  morti- 
fication4. It  must  have  been  about  373  that  by  reason  of  their 
virtues  the  two  friends  were  selected  for  the  episcopal  office.  Basil 
yielded,  but  only,  as  he  believed  at  least,  after  securing  from  Chryso- 
stom the  promise  that  he  too  would  accept  the  same  burden  — 
this  Basil  is  generally  identified  with  Basil  of  Raphaneia,  who  assisted 

1  De  sacerdotio,  ii.  8.  2  Ib.,   i.   5  ;   cf.  Ad  viduam  iun.,  c.   2. 

3  De  sacerdotio,  i.    1.  4  Ib.,  i.  4 — 6. 


324  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

at  the  Council  of  Constantinople  (in  381)  and  whose  name  appears 
among  those  of  the  last  Syrian  bishops  to  sign  its  decrees * ;  but 
Chrysostom,  filled  with  distrust  of  himself,  took  refuge  in  flight.  His 
six  splendid  books  on  the  priesthood  (see  no.  8)  were  written  to  justify 
himself  in  the  eyes  of  the  friend  whom  he  had  so  grievously  de- 
ceived. His  own  desire  was  to  free  himself  from  all  worldly  cares 
and  to  withdraw  to  the  desert.  After  the  death  of  his  mother,  appa- 
rently, he  retired  to  the  mountainous  region  near  Antioch  where  he 
spent  four  years  under  the  guidance  of  an  aged  monk,  and,  after- 
wards passed  two  years  in  a  cave,  in  the  practice  of  ascetic  exercises 
and  the  study  of  the  Book  of  Books2.  His  delicate  and  weakly 
body  was,  however,  unequal  to  this  strain,  and  he  was  forced  by 
sickness  to  return  to  Antioch. 

2.  CHRYSOSTOM  AS  PREACHER  AT  ANTIOCH.  —  In  38 1  Chryso- 
stom  was  ordained  deacon  by  Meletius,  and  early  in  the  year  386 
he  was  raised  to  the  priesthood  by  Flavian,  the  successor  of  Meletius. 
Flavian  entertained  for  him  a  special  affection,  kept  him  constantly 
at  his  side,  and  soon  entrusted  to  him  the  duty  of  preaching  in  the 
principal  church  of  the  city.  For  more  than  ten  years  Chrysostom 
discharged  this  office  with  ardent  zeal  and  great  success.  The  most 
famous  of  his  homilies  were  delivered  between  387  and  397.  Antioch 
heard  his  discourses  with  enthusiasm  and  admiration,  and  the  fame 
of  the  illustrious  preacher  spread  far  and  wide. 

3.  CHRYSOSTOM,  PATRIARCH  OF  CONSTANTINOPLE.  CHRYSOSTOM 
AND  EUTROPIUS.  —  Nectarius ,  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  died 
September  27.,  397.  At  the  suggestion  of  the  emperor  Arcadius, 
Chrysostom  was  chosen  by  the  clergy  and  people  as  successor  to 
Nectarius.  It  was  only  by  cunning  and  violence  that  the  newly- 
elected  bishop  was  brought  from  Antioch  to  the  capital.  Theophilus, 
patriarch  of  Alexandria,  raised  some  futile  objections  against  the 
election;  he  was  compelled  himself  to  consecrate  Chrysostom,  Fe- 
bruary 26.,  398.  From  that  day  Chrysostom  considered  it  his  sacred 
duty  to  preach  to  the  people  the  word  of  God.  At  the  same  time 
he  began  a  war  of  extermination  against  the  abuses  that  had  crept  in 
among  the  clergy  of  the  city  and  the  patriarchate.  In  the  beginning 
he  was  aided  by  the  imperial  court,  but  ere  long  could  recognize 
the  growth  of  a  strong  opposition.  The  weak  and  narrow-minded 
emperor,  always  at  the  mercy  of  his  advisers,  was  entirely  in  the 
hands  of  the  eunuch  Eutropius  who  abused  his  great  influence  to 
satisfy  his  insatiable  avarice.  Chrysostom  alone  dared  to  oppose  the 
all-powerful  favorite.  His  warnings  were  heard  with  contemptuous 
unconcern,  but  his  threats  of  divine  vengeance  had  not  to  wait  long 
for  their  fulfilment.    The  accounts  of  the  fall  of  Eutropius  vary  con- 

1  Mansi,  SS.  Cone.   Coll.,  iii.   568. 

2  Pallad-,  Dial,  de  vita  S.  loan.   Chrys.,  c.   5. 


§    74-      ST.   JOHN    CHRYSOSTOM.  325 

siderably.  In  the  beginning  of  399,  the  favorite  escaped  death  only 
by  a  hasty  flight  to  the  church  where  he  claimed  the  right  of  asylum, 
the  same  privilege  that  shortly  before  he  had  violated  because  it 
stood  between  him  and  his  own  victims.  His  fate  was  already 
sealed,  had  not  Chrysostom  interfered  and,  for  the  sake  of  the  guilty 
wretch,  defended  a  privilege  held  sacred  from  time  immemorial. 

4.  CHRYSOSTOM  AND  EUDOXIA.  —  After  the  fall  of  Eutropius, 
the  imperial  authority  passed  rapidly  into  the  hands  of  the  empress 
Eudoxia,  with  the  result  that  soon  there  broke  out  a  still  graver 
conflict  between  the  court  and  the  patriarch.  Very  probably  this 
new  rupture  was  the  work  of  some  high-placed  ecclesiastics  who  left 
no  opportunity  untried  of  prejudicing  the  empress  against  Chrysostom. 
Early  in  401,  Chrysostom  wrote  to  John  archbishop  of  Caesarea,  and 
to  Porphyry  bishop  of  Gaza  that  he  was  unable  to  further  their 
suits  with  the  emperor,  since  all  his  relations  with  the  court  were 
broken  off  by  the  anger  of  the  empress,  on  account  of  his  grave 
remonstrances  against  the  empress  by  reason  of  her  unjust  seizure 
of  other  people's  property 1.  A  still  greater  tension  arose  during 
the  next  year  between  the  two  patriarchs  Chrysostom  and  Theo- 
philus,  when  the  former  welcomed,  with  reserve  indeed,  but  still 
with  much  charity,  the  Nitrian  monks  whom  the  latter  had  driven 
from  their  native  land  and  continued  virulently  to  pursue  even  outside 
of  Egypt.  For  a  while,  it  is  true,  the  affair  of  the  Nitrian  monks 
threatened  unpleasant  and  even  dangerous  consequences  not  to  Chryso- 
stom but  to  Theophilus  who  was  called  to  Constantinople  to  give  an 
account  of  his  proceedings  before  a  synod  presided  over  by  Chryso- 
stom; but  the  order  was  not  enforced,  and  soon  the  conditions  were 
reversed.  It  has  already  been  made  clear  (§  71,  1)  how  Theophilus 
was  able  to  turn  to  good  account  the  interest  of  Chrysostom  in  the 
Origenist  monks,  so  that  he  roused  against  Chrysostom  the  intemperate 
zeal  of  Epiphanius.  Hardly  had  the  latter  quitted  the  capital,  when 
Chrysostom  delivered  a  discourse  (unfortunately  lost)  against  the 
luxury  of  women  and  their  inordinate  love  of  ornaments.  It  was  at 
once  interpreted  as  an  insidious  attack  on  the  weak  point  in  the 
character  of  the  empress  who  lost  no  time  in  urging  Theophilus  to 
come  at  once  to  the  capital  and  to  hold  a  synod  there  for  the  pur- 
pose of  deposing  Chrysostom.  Theophilus  arrived  at  Chalcedon  early 
in  August,  403,  with  some  twenty-five  Egyptian  suffragans,  blindly 
subservient  to  the  wishes  of  their  metropolitan,  and  he  was  joined 
by  some  suffragans  of  Constantinople,  for  one  reason  or  another 
inimical  to  their  patriarch.  In  this  way  thirty-six  bishops  met,  at  a 
villa  near  Chalcedon,  known  as  «The  Oak»,  whence  their  synod  has 
been  called  the  «Synod  of  the  Oak»   (oovodoq  htt  dpuv,  ad  quercum). 

1  Marcus  Diaconus,  Vita  S.  Porphyrii  episc.   Gaz.;  c.   37. 


326  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

The  affair  of  the  Egyptian  monks  was  utterly  ignored,  and  a  long 
series  of  charges  trumped  up  against  Chrysostom,  charges  that  Photius 
declares  do  not  deserve  to  be  mentioned  1.  Though  Chrysostom  had 
gathered  about  him  in  a  synod  of  his  own  some  forty  bishops,  he 
agreed  to  appear  before  the  synod  of  «The  Oak»,  on  condition  that 
four  bishops,  his  declared  enemies,  were  excluded  from  the  number 
of  his  judges  —  first  and  foremost,  Theophilus.  Because  of  his  non- 
appearance the  conciliabuhim  declared  him  deposed  from  the  see  of 
Constantinople,  and  referred  to  the  emperor  the  charge  of  high  treason, 
as  being  beyond  its  jurisdiction.  According  to  the  statement  of  Pal- 
ladius 2  this  charge  consisted  in  the  designation  by  Chrysostom  of  the 
empress  as  a  Jezabel 3.  Though  no  evidence  was  offered  by  the  accusers 
of  the  patriarch,  the  emperor  confirmed  the  decree  of  the  synod  and 
condemned  Chrysostom  to  banishment.  Thereupon  a  feverish  agita- 
tion spread  among  the  people  of  the  capital  to  whom  their  spiritual 
shepherd  was  an  object  of  profound  love  and  veneration.  Chryso- 
stom undertook  to  pacify  the  multitude  by  a  splendid  discourse  on 
the  invincibility  of  the  Church  and  the  inseparable  union  of  the 
head  and  members4;  on  the  third  day  after  his  condemnation  he 
placed  himself  at  the  disposal  of  the  civil  authority  and  was  led  into 
exile.  The  excitement  assumed  threatening  dimensions.  In  the  follow- 
ing night  the  capital  was  shaken  by  a  violent  earthquake,  whereupon 
Eudoxia  was  seized  with  such  fear  and  anguish  that  she  requested 
from  the  emperor  the  immediate  recall  of  Chrysostom.  She  also 
wrote  to  the  patriarch  a  letter  of  regret  in  which  she  asserted  her 
innocence  of  the  wrong  done  him  and  called  on  God  to  witness 
her  tears5.  The  imperial  messengers  came  up  with  the  exile  near 
Prenetum  in  Bithynia.  When  he  reached  again  the  shores  of  the 
Bosphorus,  an  indescribable  joy  filled  the  hearts  of  the  whole  popula- 
tion. But  Chrysostom  still  hesitated  to  enter  the  city  and  resume  his 
episcopal  functions  on  account  of  the  fourth  and  twelfth  canons  of 
the  Council  of  Antioch  (341),  according  to  which  a  bishop  deposed 
in  one  synod  could  not  re-enter  his  see,  unless  he  were  re-instated 
by  a  larger  synod;  violators  of  these  canons  were  to  be  for  ever 
dispossessed  of  their  sees6.  He  desired,  therefore,  a  greater  synod 
to  take  cognizance  of  what  was  done,  and  to  examine  the  charges 
of  the  synod  of  «the  Oak»  against  him,  but  the  popular  impatience 
was  irresistible.  With  loving  violence,  Chrysostom  was  again  inducted 
into  his  see,  the  return  journey  was  turned  into  a  triumphant  pro- 
cession ;  the  empress  herself  made  haste  to  assure  him  of  her  joy  at 
the  fulfilment  of  her  prayers  and  earnest  wishes 7.    The  following  day 

1  Bibl.  Cod.   59.  2  Dial,  de  vita  S.  loan.   Chrys.,  c.   8.  3  Apoc.   ii.   20. 

4  Migne,  PC,  lii.   427  • — 430.  5   Chrys.,  Horn,  post  reditum,   n.  4. 

6  Mansi,  SS.   Cone.   Coll.,  ii.    1309    13 13. 

7  Chrys..  Horn,  post  reditum,   n.   4. 


§    74-      ST.   JOHN    CHRYSOSTOM.  327 

Chrysostom   entered    the   pulpit   of  his   cathedral   and   spoke  of  the 
empress  in  terms  of  the  highest  praise1. 

5.  PROGRESS  AND  END  OF  THE  CHRYSOSTOM-TRAGEDY.  —  This 
peaceful  condition  of  affairs  was  not  destined  to  last.  Some  two 
months  after  these  events,  during  the  autumn  of  403,  a  statue  of  the 
empress  was  erected  in  the  capital  quite  close  to  the  cathedral 
church.  At  its  dedication  there  were  the  usual  ceremonies  lasting 
several  days,  with  games,  dances  and  other  amusements.  The  popular 
dissipation  was  unquestionably  excessive,  and  went  so  far  as  to 
disturb  the  ecclesiastical  services.  Chrysostom  requested  the  city- 
prefect  to  put  an  end  to  these  disturbances  in  the  vicinity  of  the 
church.  Thereupon  the  prefect  reported  to  the  empress  that  the 
patriarch  objected  to  the  honors  paid  her  statue  by  the  people. 
Wounded  in  her  vanity,  the  empress  resolved  to  rid  herself  of  the 
intrepid  disciplinarian,  and  applied  anew  to  Theophilus.  Socrates2 
and  Sozomen3  relate  that,  when  Chrysostom  heard  of  her  extreme 
resolution,  he  too  proceeded  to  extremes,  and,  on  the  feast  of  the 
Beheading  of  St.  John  the  Baptist,  began  his  sermon  with  the  fol- 
lowing words:  «Again  doth  Herodias  rave,  again  doth  she  rage, 
again  doth  she  dance  (?) ,  again  doth  she  ask  for  the  head  of  John 
(the  speaker  also  was  John!)  on  a  trencher.»  The  correctness  of 
the  statement  is  open  to  grave  suspicions;  ostensibly  the  words  are 
to  be  found  in  the  above-mentioned  Horn,  in  decoll.  S.  loan.  Bapt. 4 
that  really  does  open  with  these  wrords,  but  is  not,  however,  a  ho- 
mily of  Chrysostom;  on  the  contrary,  it  was  probably  forged  by 
his  enemies  for  the  persual  of  the  empress.  In  the  meantime  the  plan 
of  Eudoxia  ripened.  Theophilus,  however,  could  not  resolve  on 
another  visit  to  the  capital,  but  through  his  envoys  caused  the  afore- 
said canons  of  Antioch  to  be  invoked  against  Chrysostom.  The 
legitimacy  and  validity  of  these  canons,  it  is  true,  was  not  universally 
admitted;  but  even  if  it  were  granted,  they  had  no  reference  to 
Chrysostom  in  the  eyes  of  those  who  denied  the  legality  of  the 
sentence  passed  by  the  «Synod  of  the  Oak».  In  the  East,  however, 
all  justice  was,  in  those  days,  trampled  on  by  the  will  of  the  emperor 
or  the  empress.  The  tragedy  of  Chrysostom,  as  Isidore  of  Pelusium 
remarks5,  furnishes  the  most  disgraceful  proof  of  the  fact  that  it  was 
Christian  bishops  who  constantly  made  broader  and  easier  the  way 
of  imperial  absolutism  and  caesaropapism.  The  emperor  ordered 
Chrysostom  to  cease  performing  ecclesiastical  functions  which  he  re- 
fused to  do,  whereupon  he  was  forbidden  to  quit  his  residence.  On 
Holy  Saturday,  404,  he  entered  the  Cathedral  in  order  to  baptize  with 
his  own  hand  the  catechumens  whom  he  had  instructed  in  the  preced- 
ing year.     The   ceremonies  were   interrupted    at  nightfall   by    armed 

1  Ib.,  11,34.  2  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   18.  3  Hist,  eccl.,  viii.   20. 

4  Migne,  PG.,  lix.  485—490.  5  Ep.  i.    152. 


328  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

soldiers,  the  faithful  driven  with  violence  from  the  church ;  even  the 
baptismal  water  was  stained  with  blood,  and  the  Holy  Eucharist  pro- 
faned. When  an  attempt  was  made  to  gather  the  faithful  in  another 
place  where  the  sacred  function  might  be  completed,  fresh  violence 
and  greater  cruelties  were  committed.  A  few  days  after  Pentecost 
(404)  the  emperor,  yielding  to  the  insistence  of  the  patriarch's  en- 
emies, gave  him  strict  orders  to  leave  the  city  at  once.  In  order  to 
avoid  a  popular  sedition,  Chrysostom  placed  himself  (June  20.)  se- 
cretly in  the  hands  of  those  who  were  appointed  to  take  him  to 
his  place  of  exile.  He  learned  at  Nicaea,  where  they  stayed  a 
few  days,  that  his  destination  was  Cucusus  in  Lesser  Armenia,  «the 
most  abandoned  spot  in  the  world»  (to  Tzdarjc,  rfJQ  ohoofisviqQ  ipTj/jto- 
zarov  ycopiov)  1.  As  the  party  wound  its  way  inland,  the  surround- 
ings grew  more  inhospitable,  the  trials  greater,  and  the  privations 
more  numerous.  His  «weak  and  spiderlike»  body2  was  worn  out  by 
fever  and  ailments  of  the  stomach.  From  the  bishops  of  the  cities 
through  which  he  passed,  he  received  a  treatment  that  caused  him 
afterward  to  write:  «with  exception  of  a  few,  it  is  the  bishops  whom 
I  fear  most» 3.  At  the  end  of  seventy  days  he  reached  Cucusus, 
where  he  was  welcomed  with  affection  and  attentively  cared  for.  In 
the  meantime  another  persecution  had  begun  at  Constantinople.  Its 
victims  were  the  friends  and  adherents  of  John ,  called  Johannites, 
and  its  violence  recalled  the  days  of  Nero  and  Domitian;  it  spread 
quickly  through  the  neighboring  provinces  and  finally  to  every 
part  of  the  empire.  The  Johannites  were  made  to  bear  the  blame 
of  a  conflagration  which  had  broken  out  immediately  after  his  exile, 
and  by  which  the  cathedral  (Sancta  Sophia)  with  the  adjoining 
edifices  (among  them  the  splendid  palace  of  the  Senate)  had  been 
destroyed.  As  a  judicial  investigation  led  to  no  result,  the  origin 
of  that  fire  has  always  remained  unknown.  Chrysostom  was  at 
once  succeeded  by  Arsacius,  a  brother  of  the  preceding  patriarch 
Nectarius;  when  Arsacius  died,  Nov.  11.  405,  he  was  followed  by 
Atticus.  But  the  great  majority  of  the  Johannites,  in  spite  of  mani- 
fold violence,  refused  to  recognize  either  Arsacius  or  Atticus,  and 
conducted  their  church  services  apart.  Extraordinary  natural  pheno- 
mena, in  which  the  hand  of  God  seemed  visible,  strengthened  the 
Johannites  in  their  resistance.  Eudoxia  had  triumphed  over  her  ad- 
versary, but  she  sickened  and  died,  a  few  months  afterwards,  in  the 
flower  of  her  age.  Pope  Innocent  I. ,  to  whom  both  parties  had  ap- 
pealed, sided  with  Chrysostom,  but  did  not  break  off  communion 
with  Theophilus.  The  ecumenical  council  proposed  by  the  pope  never 
met,  and  the  mediation  of  the  western  emperor  Honorius,  proffered 
at  the  request  of  the  pope,    was   rejected   with   much    contumely  by 

1   Chrys.,  Ep.   234;  cf.    194  235.  2  Chrys.,  Ep.  4  ad  Olymp.,  n.  4. 

3  Ep.    14  ad  Olymp.,  n.  4. 


§    74-      ST-   JOHN    CHRYSOSTOM.  329 

Arcadius  or  his  counsellors.  The  entire  West  broke  off  communion 
with  Atticus.  The  conflict  with  the  patriarch  and  the  empress  had 
now  become  a  schism  between  the  East  and  the  West.  During  these 
proceedings  a  period  of  tribulation  had  opened  for  Chrysostom.  At 
Cucusus  he  suffered  equally  from  the  cold  of  winter  and  the  heat 
of  summer;  the  raids  of  Isaurian  marauders  caused  the  entire  popula- 
tion of  the  wretched  place  to  wander  about  constantly  in  ravines 
and  forests.  But  no  suffering  could  bend  Chrysostom;  he  remained 
constantly  in  close  touch  with  his  flock  in  the  capital  and  with  his 
friends  in  the  less  distant  Antioch  by  means  of  frequent  visits  and 
an  extensive  correspondence.  His  tireless  zeal  found  a  new  object 
in  the  mission-stations  that  he  was  enabled  to  establish  among  the 
Goths  in  Cilicia  and  Phoenicia.  On  the  other  hand,  his  enemies 
were  not  inactive.  Palladius  tells  us,  in  his  dialogue  on  the  life  of 
Chrysostom1,  that  they  could  not  tolerate  «the  sight  of  the  entire 
Antiochene  community  going  in  pilgrimage  towards  Armenia,  whence 
in  turn  resounded  through  the  church  of  Antioch  the  echoes  of  the 
sweet  philosophy  of  Chrysostom».  At  their  petition  Arcadius  ordered 
Chrysostom  to  leave  Cucusus  and  to  go  to  Pityus,  a  wild  spot  near 
the  eastern  extremity  of  the  Black  Sea.  It  was  probably  towards 
the  end  of  June,  407,  that  Chrysostom  began  the  journey  to  Pityus; 
on  Sept.  14.,  he  yielded  up  his  spirit  at  Comana  in  Pontus,  broken 
by  the  hardships  of  the  way.  His  last  words  were  his  habitual  ex- 
pression or  motto:  «Glory  be  to  God  for  all  ßo$a  zw  dew  Tidvzcov 
Bvsxev),  and  a  last  Amen 2.  —  Atticus  and  his  friends  were  received 
into  the  communion  of  Rome  only  on  condition  that  they  should 
recite  in  the  diptychs  the  name  of  the  deceased  patriarch.  It  is  said 
that  the  last  of  the  Johannites  were  reconciled  only  when,  in  the 
beginning  of  the  year  438,  the  earthly  remains  of  the  Saint  were 
brought  back  to  Constantinople  and  interred  in  the  Church  of  the 
Apostles.  Theodoret3  tells  us  that  the  emperor  Theodosius  II.,  a 
son  of  Eudoxia,  went  out  to  meet  the  funeral  train,  and  bending 
low  over  the  body  of  the  martyr  «begged  that  he  would  intercede 
with  God  for  his  parents  who  had  sinned  through  ignorance». 

6.  EXEGETICAL  HOMILIES.  —  No  other  writer  of  the  Greek  Church 
has  left  so  extensive  a  literary  legacy  as  Chrysostom.  Most  of  his 
genuine  and  undoubted  writings  are  scriptural  expositions 
in  the  form  of  homilies.  First  in  the  series  are  67  homilies  on 
Genesis4  delivered  at  Antioch,  probably  in  388.  They  take  up  the 
book  by  sections,  and  exhibit,  though  in  homily-form,  a  complete 
commentary  on  the  text.  Then  follow  Homiliae  9  in  Genesinh  all 
of  which,  excepting  the  last,  deal  with  the  first  three  chapters  of  the 
book.     Some  chapters  of  the  Books  of  Kings  are  commented  on  in 

1  Dial.,  c.   11.  2  lb.  3  Hist,  eccl.,  v.  36. 

4  Migne,  PG.,  liii— liv;   cf.  ixiv.  499—502.  5  Ib.,  liv.   581—630. 


330  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

his  Homiliae  5  de  Anna1,  preached  at  Easter  387,  and  Homiliae  3 
de  Davide  et  Saule2,  delivered  in  the  summer  of  387;  we  have  not 
from  his  pen  a  continuous  commentary  on  Kings.  He  seems  to  have 
explained  all  the  Psalms  in  a  long  series  of  homilies;  we  possess 
so  far  only  his  exposition  of  about  60  Psalms  (4 — 12  43 — 49  108 
to  117  119 — 150)3.  It  remains  uncertain  whether  he  wrote  on  any 
other  poetical  books  of  the  Old  Testament;  there  are  important 
fragments  of  a  commentary  on  Job 4  and  on  Proverbs 5  that  bear  his 
name,  but  to  establish  their  genuineness  will  require  more  study  and 
better  proof.  On  the  prophetic  books  we  have  the  two  homilies  De 
prophetiarum  obscuritate^,  composed  at  Antioch  about  386.  The 
commentary  on  the  beginning  oflsaias  (i.  1  to  viii.  10) 7  is  probably 
an  excerpt  from  homilies  (of  the  year  387?)  which  the  compiler 
stripped  of  their  oratorical  garb  and  worked  into  a  continuous  ex- 
planation of  the  text.  Besides  this  commentary  on  Isaias  there  are 
six  other  homilies8,  delivered  in  386.  Many  scholia  on  Jeremias 
bear  the  name  of  Chrysostom9;  and  the  so-called  commentary  on 
Daniel 10  is  only  a  compilation  of  scholia  from  the  Catenae.  —  His  ex- 
position of  the  New  Testament  begins  with  90  homilies  on  Matthew  n. 
They  were  written  and  delivered  at  Antioch  about  390,  and  exhibit 
him  not  only  as  a  great  preacher  but  as  a  great  expounder  of 
Scripture.  Suidas  speaks12  of  commentaries  of  St.  Chrysostom  «on 
Matthew  and  Mark  and  Luke» ;  but  this  is  probably  an  error,  for 
there  is  no  other  mention  of  commentaries  on  Mark  and  Luke.  The 
nearest  approach  to  one  is  the  series  of  Homiliae  7  de  Lazaro^^ 
and  the  single  homily  on  this  same  parable14.  But  on  the  other 
hand,  we  possess  the  commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  John,  also  men- 
tioned by  Suidas15;  its  88  homilies  are  much  shorter  than  those 
on  Matthew,  and  were  delivered  at  Antioch,  probably  about  389. 
About  400  or  401  Chrysostom  illustrated  the  text  of  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  in  55  homilies16;  their  language  is  less  polished  than 
that  of  other  discourses  of  Chrysostom,  probably  because  they  have 
reached  us  only  in  an  uncorrected  tachygraphic  report.  The  four 
homilies  on  the  beginning  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles17,  and  the 
four  on  the  change  of  name  in  the  case  of  St.  Paul  and  other  bi- 
blical personages18,  were  delivered  during  the  Eastertide  of  388.  Chryso- 
stom wrote  and  delivered  homilies  on  all  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul: 
32  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  in  391  19;  44  and  30,  respectively, 

1  Migne,  PG.,   liv.   631—676.  2  Ib.,   liv.   675—708.  3  lb.,  lv. 

4  Ib.,  lxiv.   503 — 656.  5  Ib.,  lxiv.  659—740.  6  Ib.,  lvi.    163—192. 

7  Ib.,  lvi.    11—  94.  8  Ib.,  lvi.  97—142.  n  Ib.,  lxiv.   739—1038. 

10  Ib.,  lvi    193 — 246.  ll  Ib.,  lvii.  Iviii.  12  Lex.  s.  v.  loan.  Antioch. 

n  Lk.  xvi.  19—31;   Migne,  PG.,  xlviii.  963 — 1054.  14  Migne,  lxiv.  433 — 444- 

15  Ib.,  lix;   the  episode  of  the  adulterous  woman,  John  vii.   53  to  viii.    11    is  wanting. 

16  Ib.,  lx.  "  lb.,  li.  65—112.  18  Ib.,   li.    113— 156. 
19  Ib.,   lx;   cf.   the  supplement  lxiv.    1037. 


§    74-      ST-   JOHN    CHRYSOSTOM.  33 1 

about  392,  on  the  two  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians1;  and  3  homilies 
on  marriage  in  explanation  of  1  Cor.  vii.  1  ff. 2,  and  three  others  on 
2  Cor.  iv.  13 3;  a  commentary  on  Galatians4,  which  must  have  been 
originally  in  homily-form,  like  the  exposition  of  Isaias  mentioned 
above ;  also  24  on  Ephesians ,  1 5  on  Philippians ,  1 2  on  Colossians, 
1 1  on  1  Thessalonians ,  5  on  2  Thessalonians ,  1 8  on  1  Timothy, 
10  on  2  Timothy,  6  on  Titus,  3  on  Philemon5,  and  34  on  Hebrews6. 
The  last  34  homilies  were  not  published  until  after  the  death  of 
Chrysostom  and  then  from  the  notes  of  the  tachy graphers.  Some 
scJiolia  to  the  Catholic  Epistles  have  been  edited  under  the  name 
of  Chrysostom7.  We  may  add  a  great  number  of  homilies,  which 
deal,  in  one  way  or  another,  with  isolated  texts  of  the  Scripture.  — 
Among  the  expositions  of  the  Old  Testament,  his  homilies  on  the 
Psalms  have  always  been  held  in  special  esteem.  The  best  of  his 
New  Testament  commentaries  are,  by  common  consent,  the  homilies 
on  Romans.  Isidore  of  Pelusium8  said  of  them  that  «the  treasures 
of  the  wisdom  of  the  learned  John  are  especially  abundant  in  his 
exposition  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  I  think  (and  it  cannot 
be  said  that  I  write  to  natter  any  one)  that  if  the  divine  Paul  wished 
to  expound  in  the  Attic  tongue  his  own  writings,  he  would  not  have 
spoken  otherwise  than  this  famous  master;  so  remarkable  is  the 
latter' s  exposition  for  its  contents,  its  beauty  of  form,  and  propriety 
of  expression».  In  later  ages  the  judgment  of  the  Pelusiot  (f  ca.  440) 
has  often  been  quoted  with  approval. 

7.  OTHER  DISCOURSES.  —  Chrysostom  preached,  besides  the 
exegetical  homilies,  many  other  sermons  on  miscellaneous  sub- 
jects. Not  a  few,  however,  are  of  doubtful  or  disputed  provenance. 
The  Homiliae  8  adver sus  Judaeos*  preached  in  the  years  387 — 389, 
not  so  much  against  the  Jews  as  against  those  Christians  who  followed 
the  Jews  in  their  feasts  or  their  fasts,  and  especially  against  the  Proto- 
paschites  (Horn.  3);  the  Homiliae  12  contra  Anomoeos  de  incomprehen- 
siöili10  delivered  partly  at  Antioch  and  partly  at  Constantinople  and 
treating  of  the  incomprehensibility  of  God  and  the  essential  unity  of 
the  Son  and  the  Father ;  also  a  Homilia  de  resurr ectione  %mortuorum  n, 
are  usually  classed  as  dogmatico-polemical  discourses.  —  His  ascetico- 
moral  homilies  are  more  numerous.  Some  of  them  form  connected 
groups,  thus  the  Catecheses  2  ad  illuminandos^  addressed  to  the 
catechumens  early  in  the  Lent  of  387;  the  Homiliae  j  de  diabolo 
tentatoreVi  concerning  temptations  to  sin  (the  second  of  these  homilies 
in  Montfaucon  and  Migne  should  have  been  put  in  the  third  place) ; 

1  Ib.,  lxi.  2  Ib.,  li.   207—242.  3  Ib.,  li.   271 — 302.  4  Ib.,  lxi. 

5  Ib.,  lxii.  6  Ib.,  lxiii.  7  Ib.,  lxiv.    1039 — 1062.  8  Ep.,  v.   32. 

9  Migne,  PG.,  xlviii.   843 — 942.  10  Ib.,  xlviii.   701 —  812. 

11  Ib.,  1.  4i7ter — 432.  12  Ib.,  xlix.  223 — 240. 

13  Ib.,  xlix.  241 — 276. 


332  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

the  Homiliae  p  de  poenitentia 1  the  last  three  of  which,  if  not  more, 
are  of  somewhat  doubtful  genuineness.  Most  of  these  homilies,  however, 
are  complete  treatises,  each  one  of  them  treating  its  subject  ex- 
haustively. Some  of  them  are  quite  well-known  in  Greek  homiletic 
literature,  thus:  the  discourse  In  Kalendas2,  a  rebuke  of  the  super- 
stitious excesses  with  which  the  New  Year  was  celebrated;  the  dis- 
course De  eleemosyna*,  a  detailed  interpretation  of  I  Cor.  xvi.  I — 4; 
the  discourse  Contra  cir censes  ludos  et  theatra*.  Of  his  festal  dis- 
courses the  following  have  been  preserved:  two  on  Christmas5,  the 
first  of  which  was  preached  Dec.  25.,  388,  while  the  second  is  of 
doubtful  genuineness;  a  discourse  on  the  Epiphany  or  on  the  Baptism 
of  our  Lord6;  three  discourses  on  the  treason  of  Judas,  for  Holy 
Thursday7;  the  second  discourse  is  only  a  recast  of  the  first  either 
by  the  author  or  by  a  later  writer,  while  the  third  is  of  doubtful 
origin;  three  Good  Friday  discourses  on  the  Sepulchre  and  on  the 
Cross  and  on  the  Good  Thief8,  the  second  and  third  of  which  re- 
present probably  the  same  sermon;  two  discourses  on  Easter9,  the 
second  of  doubtful  genuineness;  two  discourses  on  the  Ascension10, 
the  second  is  of  doubtful  origin;  three  discourses  on  Pentecost11. 
Among  his  panegyrics  of  Saints  the  Homiliae  J  de  laudibus  S.  Paidi 
Ap. 12  delivered  at  Antioch,  have  always  been  the  most  admired ; 
the  old  Latin  translator  Anianus  believed  that  in  them  the  great 
Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  was  not  only  depicted,  but  in  a  certain  sense 
awakened  from  the  dead,  so  that  he  might  exhibit  an  example  of  a 
perfect  life13;  since  then  it  has  often  been  said  that  the  praises  of 
St.  Paul  were  never  sung  more  nobly  than  by  St.  John  Chrysostom. 
He  delivered  other  panegyrics  on  the  Saints  of  the  Old  Testament 
(Job,  Eleazar,  the  Macchabees  and  their  mother),  on  the  martyrs  in 
general  and  on  several  Saints  of  a  later  time,  finally  on  Diodorus, 
bishop  of  Tarsus,  and  on  the  emperor  Theodosius  the  Great.  A 
special  interest  attaches  to  the  discourses  delivered  at  Antioch  on 
the  holy  bishops  of  that  city:  Ignatius,  Babylas,  Philogonius,  Eusta- 
thius  and  Meletius u.  The  most  famous  of  his  occasional  discourses 
are  the  Homiliae  21  de  statuis  ad  popidum  Antiochenum1^.  When 
Theodosius  the  Great  imposed,  early  in  387,  extraordinary  taxes 
on  the  provinces  of  the  East,    resentment   and   embitterment   spread 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xlix.  277 — 350.  2  Ib.,  xlviii.  953 — 962. 

3  Ib.,  li.   261 — 272.  4  Ib.,  lvi.   263 — 270. 

5  Ib.,   Ixix.   351 — 362   and  lvi.   385 — 396.  6  Ib.,  xlix.   363 — 472. 

7  Ib.,   xlix.   373 — 392  and  1.   715 — 720.  8  Ib.,   xlix.   393—418. 

9  Ib.,  1.  433 — 442  and  lii.   765 — 772.  10  Ib.,  1.  441 — 452  and  lii.   773 — 792. 

11  Ib.,  1.  453—470  and  Ixiv.  417—424.  12  Ib.,   1.  473—514. 

13  Ib.,  1.  471*— 472*. 

u  The  discourse  on  Philogonius  is  Horn.  6  contra  Anomoeos:  Ib.,  xlviii.   747 — 756; 
the  other  four:  lb.  1. 
15  Ib.,  xlix.   15 — 222. 


§    74-      ST-   JOHN    CHRYSOSTOM.  333 

through  Antioch  to  such  a  degree  that  among  other  acts  of  violence 
the  statues  of  the  emperor,  his  father,  his  sons  and  his  deceased 
wife  Flaccilla,  were  overturned,  barbarously  defaced  and  mutilated. 
The  outraged  emperor  was  disposed  to  wreak  exemplary  vengeance 
on  all  Antioch.  An  embassy,  headed  by  Flavian,  the  bishop  of  the 
city,  hastened  at  once  to  the  capital.  The  discourse  of  Flavian  to 
the  emperor  Theodosius,  doubtlessly  the  work  of  Chrysostom1,  has 
always  been  accounted  a  model  of  ancient  Christian  eloquence. 
Theodosius  could  not  restrain  his  tears  as  he  listened  to  it.  In  the 
meantime  (it  was  the  Lenten  period)  Chrysostom  delivered  at  Antioch 
the  famous  «statue-homilies»  :  in  them  he  undertakes  first  to  calm  the 
agitated  and  despairing  population;  then  he  profits  by  the  good 
dispositions  of  his  audience  to  reprove  them  earnestly  for  the  domi- 
nant vices  of  their  city,  notably  the  habit  of  frivolous  swearing; 
finally  he  announces  the  success  of  the  embassy  and  the  magnanimity 
of  the  emperor.  These  homilies  must  have  made  the  young  orator 
master  for  ever  of  the  ears  and  hearts  "of  the  Antiochenes.  To  the 
first  years  of  his  sojourn  at  Constantinople  belong  two  other  famous 
discourses,  viz.  the  homilies  on  Eutropius2:  in  the  first  the  orator 
makes  plain  the  uncertainty  of  human  felicity  by  the  example  of  Eu- 
tropius who  was  visible  to  the  audience  as  he  clung  pitifully  to  the 
altar;  the  second  dealing  with  the  same  subject  was  delivered  after 
some  days,  when  Eutropius  had  left  the  church  and  fallen  into  the 
hands  of  justice.  Other  famous  homilies  are  that  on  the  occasion  of 
his  ordination  to  the  priesthood,  which  was  his  first  sermon3,  the  one 
delivered  on  the  eve  of  his  first  exile4,  and  the  discourse  delivered 
on  the  day  after  his  return  from  the  exile5. 

8.  APOLOGETIC  AND  ASCETICO-MORAL  WRITINGS.  —  It  is  pos- 
sible that  even  these  writings  may  have  been  partly  homiletic  in 
their  origin.  Two  of  them  are  apologetic  in  tendency  and  character: 
the  one  in  honor  of  Saint  Babylas  and  against  Julian  and  the  heathens 
(koyoQ  eIq  rbv  juaxdptov  BaßuXav  xat  xara  'looktavoü  xat  Tzpbg'EXXr^ac,)^ 
written  about  382,  and  the  demonstration  of  the  divinity  of  Christ 
against  the  Jews  and  the  heathens  (xpuc,  re  'Ioudaiooc,  xat  "EAArjvaq 
dnoost^LQ  ort  eavt  ttsbg  6  XptarogJ7  written  perhaps  in  387.  In  both 
compositions  he  aims  at  establishing  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ; 
the  second  lays  special  stress  on  the  fulfilment  of  the  Old  Testament 
prophecies  as  well  as  on  the  fulfilment  of  Christ's  own  prophecies 
(especially  those  concerning  the  irresistible  growth  of  the  Church  and 
the  destruction  of  the  Temple),  whereas  in  the  first  work  it  is  the 
miracles  of  Christ  and  those  done  by  Christians  in  his  name  that 
afford  the  basis  of  his  argument.    After  many  references  to  the  past, 

1  CX  Horn.  21   de  statuis,  n.   3.  2  Migne,  PG.,  Hi.  391 — 414. 

3  Ib.,  xlviii.  693 — 700.  4  Ib.,  lii.  427* — 430.  5  Ib.,  Hi.  443 — 448. 

6  Ib.,  1.   533—572.  7  Ib.,  xlviii.  813-838. 


334  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

the  author  calls  the  present  before  the  bar  of  history,  and,  «to  con- 
firm an  already  more  than  complete  victory»  (c.  4),  appeals  to  the 
miracles  that  had  taken  place  on  the  occasion  of  the  translation  of 
the  remains  of  the  holy  bishop  and  martyr  Babylas  (f  250);  Julian, 
as  the  audience  remembered,  had  ordered  these  remains  to  be  taken 
away  from  the  grove  of  Daphne  near  Antioch,  with  the  intention  of 
restoring  to  that  site  the  ancient  worship  of  Apollo  and  Diana.  The 
other  writings  of  Chrysostom  are  all  ascetico-moral  in  their  contents, 
and  most  of  them  date  from  the  time  when  Chrysostom  was  still  an 
anchorite;  the  earliest  of  them,  in  the  form  of  epistles,  are  the  success- 
ful exhortation  «to  the  fallen  Theodore  (XoyoQ  Trapaivsnxbg  sIq  Geodcopov 
ixn&iovra  and  itphq  zbu  aorbv  Osudcopov  Xofoq  ß')  1,  his  friend  and  com- 
panion (subsequently  bishop  of  Mopsuestia),  who  had  yielded  to  the 
charms  of  Hermione  and  grown  wreary  of  the  ascetic  life.  The  lively 
and  energetic  tone  which  marks  this  work,  is  also  characteristic  of  his 
two  books  on  penance  (mp\  xarawj^ecuc)^,  written  about  375  or  376 
for  two  friends  (the  first  addressed  to  Demetrius,  the  second  to  Ste- 
lechius)  on  the  necessity  of  genuine  penance  and  the  nature  of  the  same. 
Rauschen  has  shown  that  Chrysostom  was  probably  only  a  deacon 
when  he  wrote  (381 — 385)  the  three  books  against  the  enemies  of 
monasticism  (rcpbc,  tooq  TToAepouvraQ  toIq  in\  to  aovaZeiv  kvayooaiv)*'. 
the  first  book  aims  at  exhibiting  the  heinous  guilt  of  the  enemies  of 
monasticism  by  a  description  of  the  sublime  and  holy  nature  of  this 
state;  the  second  book  is  addressed  to  a  pagan  father  in  the  hope 
of  persuading  him  to  allow  his  son,  already  a  Christian,  to  enter  the 
monastic  state;  the  third,  a  much  more  extensive,  book  is  addressed, 
with  the  same  purpose,  to  a  Christian  father.  In  the  second  book 
Chrysostom  occasionally  draws  (c.  6)  a  parallel  between  a  monk  and 
a  king,  and  the  same  thought  is  more  fully  developed  in  a  little 
work  entitled:  «Comparison  of  the  power,  wealth  and  authority  of 
a  king  with  the  state  of  a  monk  who  lives  in  conformity  with  true 
and  Christian  philosophy4  ffy  xarä  Xptazbv  <pdooo<pio.  i.  e.  the  life  of 
perfection).  Chrysostom  was  only  a  deacon  when  he  wrote  the  three 
books  to  Stagirius  (xpbg  Zzayetptov  äaxrjrhv  dacpovojvzaj6,  a  treatise 
of  consolation  addressed  to  a  sorely  tried  and  quasi-despairing  friend, 
that  he  might  recognize  in  his  sufferings  the  loving  purpose  of  divine 
Providence;  the  second  and  third  books  are  largely  devoted  to  a 
review  of  sacred  history  from  Adam  to  St.  Paul,  with  the  purpose 
of  proving  that  it  is  precisely  the  beloved  of  God  who  have  always 
undergone  the  greatest  tribulations.  The  six  books  on  the  priesthood 
fxspi  IspcoatjvTjQ)  6  were  written  to  explain  and  justify  his  conduct  on 
the  occasion  of  his  election  as  bishop  about  373.    As  already  narrated, 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xlvii.   277  —  316.  2  Ib.,   xlvii.   393 — 422. 

3  Ib.,  xlvii.  319—386.  4  Ib.,  xlvii.   387—392.  5  Ib.,  xlvii.  423 — 494. 

6  lb.,  xlvii.  623 — 692. 


§    74-      ST-   JOHN    CHRYSOSTOM.  335 

he  fled  from  the  burden,  but  kept  his  purpose  secret  and  induced 
his  intimate  friend  Basil  to  accept  the  proferred  office.  The  first  part 
of  the  apology  (i.  I  to  ii.  6)  is  devoted  to  proving  that  this  stratagem 
and  dissimulation  merited  praise  rather  than  blame,  since  thereby  a 
Christian  flock  obtained  so  good  a  shepherd ;  he  goes  on  to  explain 
in  the  second  part  (ii.  7  to  vi.  13)  that  he  refused  the  episcopal  office, 
because  he  had  not  the  requisite  qualities  and  felt  himself  unequal 
to  its  responsibilities  and  perils.  The  work  is  thrown  into  the  form 
of  a  dialogue  between  the  two  friends ;  Chrysostom  is  usually  some- 
what lofty  and  grave  in  his  speech;  but  here  he  exhibits  a  peculiar 
depth  of  feeling,  a  melting  tenderness,  a  delicacy  and  elegance  of 
style  that  are  not  visible  elsewhere.  This  dialogue  has  always  been 
looked  on  as  a  Christian  classic,  by  reason  of  the  incomparable  picture 
it  offers  of  the  dignity  and  grandeur  of  the  priesthood.  Internal 
evidence  would  suggest  that  it  was  written  shortly  after  373,  did  not 
Socrates  assert1  that  it  was  written  after  the  ordination  of  Chryso- 
stom as  deacon  (381).  The  brief  work  «to  a  young  widow»  (elq 
vBcoripav  yrjpeoaaaav)2,  probably  written  in  380 — 381,  seeks  to  con- 
sole her  for  the  loss  of  her  spouse,  and  the  treatise  on  the  state 
of  widows  (mpi  povavdpiao,)*  is  supposed  to  be  contemporaneous 
with  the  preceding,  and  is  often  printed  as  its  second  book,  or  as  an 
appendix;  it  recommends  in  general  that  all  widows  remain  as  they 
are,  with  reference  to  1  Cor.  vii.  40.  Quite  closely  related  is  another 
work  on  the  virginal  state  fnep}  r.ap^eviaq)^  written  probably  after 
381,  in  which  he  expounds,  in  a  warm  and  often  glowing  style,  the 
word  of  the  Apostle  (1  Cor.  vii.  38)  that  marriage  is  good  but  virgi- 
nity better.  The  work  might  justly  be  considered  as  a  commentary 
(cc.  24 — 84)  on  1  Cor.  vii.  so  much  so  that  when,  at  a  later  date, 
in  the  course  of  his  homiletic  preaching,  he  came  to  that  chapter, 
respectively  to  the  virginal  state,  he  was  able  to  refer  his  hearers  to 
this  work:  «in  which  I  have  set  forth  at  length  and  with  all  possible 
precision  (the  Christian  doctrine) ;  hence  I  hold  it  superfluous  to  return 
now  to  that  subject»5.  He  had  scarcely  entered  on  his  office  at  Con- 
stantinople when  he  issued  two  pastoral  letters,  closely  related  in 
contents :  one  to  the  clerics  who  retained  in  their  houses  virgins  con- 
secrated to  God  (rcpbc,  toüq  eyovrac,  rrapäivoug  auvstadxTougJ6,  another 
concerning  the  unlawful  custom  of  these  virgins  according  to  which 
they  permitted  men  to  dwell  with  them  in  their  houses  fuMpt  too 
zac,  xavovtkaQ  prj  oovoixeiv  dudpdaiv)1.  A  holy  zeal  breathes  from 
these  documents,  often  expressed  in  harsh  and  biting  diction;  it  is 
scarcely  to  be  wondered  at  that  in  certain  circles  they  aroused  per- 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   3.  2  Migne,  PG.,  xlviii.   599—610. 

3  Ib.,  xlviii.  609 — 620.  '  Ib.,  xlviii.   533 — 596. 

5  Horn.    19  in   1    Cor.,  n.  6.  6  Migne,  PG.,  xlvii.  495—514« 

7  Ib.,  xlvii.   513 — 532. 


3 36  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

manent  dislike  and  opposition.  Two  other  works  date  from  the  period 
of  his  second  exile:  in  one  he  undertakes  to  show  that  no  one  can 
harm  any  man  apart  from  his  own  co-operation  (ort  tov  kwjrbv 
firj  ddcxouura  oödslg  TtapaßXdipcu  dovaxai)  1,  in  the  other  he  addresses 
those  who  are  scandalized  at  the  sad  and  gloomy  outlook  of  the 
present  (npbc,  touq  oxavdafaottevraQ  im  toaq  doarjfxep'iatQ  toiq  ysuo- 
piuacQ)2.  It  is  always  and  everywhere  in  a  man's  own  power  to 
permit  or  to  repel  that  which  alone  can  harm  him ;  the  sorrows  and 
the  contradictions  that  now,  as  in  much  earlier  days,  fall  to  the  lot 
of  the  just,  ought  not  to  raise  doubts  regarding  an  overruling  Pro- 
vidence, even  if  the  ways  of  God  be  not  clear  to  us.  Thus  did  the 
holy  man  encourage  his  loyal  friends  at  home,  while  for  himself 
he  ate  the  bread  of  exile,  and  was  often  on  the  brink  of  the  grave, 
often  in  want  of  the  necessaries  of  existence3. 

9.  LETTERS. —  There  are  extant  about  238  letters  of  St.  Chryso- 
stom4,  most  of  them  quite  brief,  and  nearly  all  dating  from  his 
second  exile.  Many  of  them  are  mere  answers  to  correspondents  in 
various  quarters  who  seek  to  know  something  about  his  condition. 
Others  give  touching  evidence  of  his  pastoral  zeal  which  embraced 
not  only  his  own  flock,  but  also  the  inhabitants  of  far  barbarian 
lands.  Most  of  them  are  consolatory  in  tone,  addressed  some  to 
clerics  or  laymen  involved  in  the  sufferings  of  the  Johannites,  some 
to  other  followers  and  friends  overwhelmed  by  the  hopeless  state  of 
religion  at  Constantinople  or  by  the  increasing  wretchedness  of  Chryso- 
stom's  own  condition.  The  seventeen  letters  to  Olympias,  widow  and 
deaconess,  deserve  special  mention.  They  are  both  numerous  and 
long,  are  exceptionally  cordial  and  frank,  and  never  weary  of  ex- 
patiating on  the  utility  of  sorrow  and  trial.  In  many  of  these  letters 
there  shines  a  soul  so  magnanimous  as  to  be  no  longer  accessible 
to  external  sorrow  or  wrong,  so  closely  united  with  God  as  to  seem 
long   since  ravished  from  the  life  of  earth. 

10.  SPURIOUS  WRITINGS.  —  To  no  other  Greek  ecclesiastical  writer 
have  so  many  works  been  falsely  attributed.  His  homiletic  fame 
caused  a  multitude  of  discourses  to  court  popularity  under  his  name. 
In  almost  every  volume  (of  the  De  Montfaucon  and  Migne  editions) 
there  is  a  selection  of  spurious  pieces,  small  in  each  volume,  but 
large  as  a  whole.  The  extraordinary  authority  of  the  holy  doctor  led, 
at  a  very  early  date,  to  the  habit  of  extracting  his  utterances  on  a 
certain  subject  from  various  homilies  and  combining  such  excerpts 
into  a  new  homily  on  the  same  subject.  Of  such  exXoyai  or  Flori- 
legia,  belonging  materially  but  not  formally  to  Chrysostom,  there 
are  48  in  the  Migne  edition5.     It   is    highly  probable  not  only  that 

1  Migne,  PC,  lii.  459—480.  2  Ib.,  lii.  479—528. 

3  Cf.  Ep.  4  ad  Olymp.,  c.  4.  4  Migne,  PG.,  lii. 

5  Ib.,  lxiii.   567 — 902. 


§    74-      ST-   JOHN    CHRYSOSTOM.  337 

his  genuine  homilies  were  mutilated  during  his  lifetime,  but  that 
downright  forgeries  were  sent  out  under  his  name.  The  Horn,  in  de- 
coll.  S.  loan.  Bapt.  is  a  case  in  point  (see  no.  5).  The  so-called  liturgy 
of  St.  Chrysostom1  can  lay  no  claim  to  his  name,  except  on  the 
supposition  that  in  later  times  it  has  undergone  many  and  important 
changes.  The  occasional  remarks  of  a  liturgical  character  in  his 
writings  are  not  applicable  to  this  liturgy,  nor  are  its  formulae  in 
mutual  agreement.  The  Ethiopic  liturgy  of  St.  Chrysostom,  edited 
in  1866  by  A.  Dillmann,  has  no  more  in  common  with  the  Greek 
liturgy  of  Chrysostom  than  with  any  other  liturgy.  There  are  very 
strong  reasons  to  suspect  the  genuineness  of  the  Synopsis  veteris  et 
novi  Testamenti2,  a  kind  of  introduction  to  the  Scripture,  in  which 
the  contents  of  each  biblical  book  is  briefly  described,  and  its  im- 
portance and  place  in  the  history  of  revelation  made  clear.  So  far 
only  the  part  that  deals  with  the  Old  Testament  is  known,  and  even 
that  is  not  quite  complete.  A  careful  investigation  is  needed  of  the 
relations  of  this  synopsis  towards  the  one  falsely  attributed  to  Atha- 
nasius  (§  63,  5).  The  Opus  imperfectum  in  Matthaeum  printed  in 
the  editions  of  the  works  of  Chrysostom3  is  a  commentary  on  Mat- 
thew, whose  text,  though  fragmentary,  is  very  remarkable;  it  is 
now  known  to  be  the  production  of  some  Latin  Arian  of  the  fifth 
or  sixth  century. 

1 1 .  CHRYSOSTOM  AS  HOMILIST.  —  About  the  middle  of  the  tenth 
century,  Suidas  wrote  in  his  Lexicon  concerning  «John  of  Antioch 
surnamed  the  Golden  Mouth» :  «His  words  resounded  more  loudly 
than  the  cataracts  of  the  Nile.  Since  the  world  began,  no  one  else 
has  ever  possessed  such  gifts  as  an  orator;  he  alone,  it  may  be  said, 
possessed  them  all  in  their  fulness,  and  alone  merited  rightly  the 
name  of  Golden  Mouth  and  divine  orator. »  In  the  later  ecclesiastical 
literature,  perhaps  so  far  back  as  the  fifth  century,  the  name  of  John 
gave  way  to  that  of  Chrysostom.  Even  to  this  day  the  Golden-Mouth 
is  reckoned  the  prince  of  Eastern  orators,  with  whom  in  the  West 
only  Augustine  can  compare.  The  pulpit  is  the  peculiar  province 
of  Chrysostom  who  sought  and  found  therein,  far  more  than  did 
Augustine,  the  scene  of  his  labors.  He  is,  in  fact,  cast  in  another 
mould.  It  is  not  theory  but  practice,  not  science  but  life,  that 
attracts  and  fascinates  Chrysostom;  his  discourse  is  dialectic  and 
speculative  only  when  external  considerations  obtrude  themselves  on 
him;  otherwise  he  is  entirely  occupied  with  the  solicitudes  and  duties 
of  an  every-day  pastoral  ministry.  Augustine,  moreover,  deals  with 
the  theory  of  sacerdotal  eloquence  (§  94,  9),  while,  apart  from  an 
occasional  brief  remark,  and  some  chapters  in  the  fourth  and  fifth 
books   of  his  De  sacerdotio    on  the  grandeur   and  difficulties   of  the 

1  Ib.,  lxiii.  901 — 922.  2  Ib.,  lvi.  313 — 386.  3  lb.,  lvi.  611—946. 

Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  22 


338  SECOND    PERIOD.      FIRST    SECTION. 

homilist's  office,  Chrysostom  has  nowhere  commented  on  or  explained 
his  homiletic  principles.  There  was,  indeed,  no  difference  between 
their  principles,  neither  contradiction  nor  opposition ;  only  in  practice 
they  worked  out  differently.  To  consider  only  the  length  of  their 
discourses,  how  different  is  the  breviloquiam  of  Augustine  from  the 
fiaxpokoyia  of  Chrysostom!  The  latter  can  often  hardly  finish  in 
two  hours,  the  former  is  often  content  with  fifteen  minutes ;  but  the 
preaching  of  Augustine  makes  other  demands  on  the  mind  of  the 
nearer  than  that  of  Chrysostom.  The  former  loves  a  well-defined 
theme,  in  the  treatment  of  which  he  moves  on  with  steadiness,  his 
eyes  fixed  on  the  conclusion  which  he  pursues  along  a  strictly  dia- 
lectic line;  his  manner  is  often  so  abstract  that  his  audience  must 
have  followed  him  with  difficulty.  The  latter  is  very  diffuse,  and 
easily  abandons  his  theme,  for  the  momentary  pleasure  of  gathering 
the  wayside  flowers;  he  is  less  wearisome  and  more  entertaining; 
many  of  his  sermons  are  really  mosaics  of  small  independent  com- 
positions. Chrysostom  is  also  less  fatiguing  in  the  exposition  of  a 
particular  doctrine.  While  Augustine  very  rarely  interrupts  the  flow 
of  his  thought  by  examples  and  similes,  Chrysostom  is  convinced 
that  he  can  accomplish  more  by  lively  images  than  by  theoretical 
arguments;  indeed,  he  is  a  past  master  in  the  art  of  individualizing, 
and  makes  all  things  subservient  to  that  end.  It  is  true  that  Augu- 
stine compensates,  in  a  way  at  least,  his  more  intelligent  hearers 
by  his  splendid  antitheses,  his  brilliant  jeux  d'espi'it,  and  his  endless 
playing  upon  words;  tricks  of  rhetoric  that  are  quite  secondary  in 
the  discourse  of  Chrysostom.  The  latter  is  also  (in  a  good  sense) 
more  the  impromptu  speaker  than  Augustine;  in  the  exordium  and 
the  peroration  of  his  discourse  he  often  seizes  happily  on  some  fact 
or  interest  quite  recent  and  actual,  and  thus  enlists  into  his  service 
even  the  transient  events  of  the  day.  By  far  the  greater  part  of 
the  extant  discourses  of  Chrysostom  are  homilies.  Augustine  also 
wrote,  in  addition  to  his  Sermones,  many  Enarrationes  and  Trac- 
tatus  on  biblical  texts.  In  their  exegesis  the  two  orators  also  follow 
divergent  methods.  Augustine  seldom  checks  his  allegorizing  tendency, 
while  Chrysostom,  educated  in  the  theological  school  of  Antioch,  is 
usually  faithful  to  its  historico-philological  method  and  principles.  He 
aims  first  at  establishing  the  literal  sense,  and,  with  this  end  in  view, 
often  prefixes  an  historical  introduction,  or  will  even  stop  to  clear 
up  grammatical  difficulties.  In  his  comment  on  Is.  i.  22  *  he  remarks 
that,  while  he  will  not  reject  the  allegorical  interpretation,  he  holds 
the  literal  sense  to  be  the  truer  one  (dlfjbEaxipav  elvai  <pr}f±i)\  on 
Is.  v.  7  2  he  says  that  Holy  Scripture  itself  indicates  when  and  where 
the  tropical  interpretation  is  admissible  or  obligatory» :  if  it  allegorizes, 

1  Migne,  PG.,  Ivi.   23.  2  Ib.,  lvi.  60. 


§    74-      ST.   JOHN    CHRYSOSTOM.  339 

it  also  gives  an  interpretation  of  the  allegory  (nauza^ou  ztjq  ypacpyjq 
ohzoo,  o  uopog,  eiretdav  dAfoyjropfj,  teystv  xac  dXXrjyopiac,  rqu  sppyveiav); 
commenting  on  Is.  vi.  off.1  he  mentions  first  the  figurative  interpreta- 
tion but  adds:  «we  hold  fast,  however,  to  the  historical  sense»  (-/]pelc, 
de  zecoq  r?JQ  tazopiaq  eydpefta).  In  a  word,  Chrysostom  is  a  decided 
and  consistent  disciple  of  the  great  masters  of  Antiochene  exegesis, 
though  never  so  extreme  as  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia;  indeed,  he  is 
himself  one  of  the  foremost  masters  of  which  that  school  can  boast. 
His  distinctive  characteristic  is  the  ease  with  which,  not  only  in 
exegesis,  but  in  pulpit  oratory,  he  unites  and  reconciles  science  and 
life,  mind  and  heart;  no  one  has  ever  interpreted  Holy  Scripture  so 
successfully  as  Chrysostom,  with  such  thoroughness  and  prudence, 
one  might  say,  with  such  sobriety  and  accuracy,  yet  again  with  so 
much  depth  and  comprehensiveness.  If  we  add  to  all  these  qualities 
a  certain  delicacy  and  refinement,  we  shall  understand  why  in  his 
hands  the  Scriptures  became  such  a  source  of  living  progress  in 
every  province  of  religious  life. 

12.  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  CHRYSOSTOM.  —  His  hermeneutical  prin- 
ciples make  him  the  very  antithesis  of  Origen;  no  accusation  is 
more  groundless  than  that  of  Origenism  made  by  Theophilus  of 
Alexandria  (see  no.  4)  against  the  great  exegete.  It  may  be  looked 
on  as  certain,  though  positive  evidence  is  wanting,  that,  with  regard 
to  the  origin  of  the  human  soul,  Chrysostom  was  a  firm  believer  in 
Creatianism  and  not  in  the  pre-existence  doctrine  of  Origen.  Hence 
the  doctrine  of  Apocatastasis  or  «general  restoration»  in  the  sense 
of  Origen  (and  Gregory  of  Nyssa)  was  quite  foreign  to  his  principles ; 
one  need  only  listen  to  what  he  says  concerning  the  pains  of  the 
damned:  «Hell  is  not  sufficient,  although  eternal,  to  wash  away  the 
stains  of  sin;  for  that  reason  it  is  eternal  (did.  zouzo  yap  xal  alwvtoc, 
eoziv)2.  His  teaching  on  original  sin  brought  about  a  controversy 
between  Augustine  and  Julian  of  Eclanum.  In  an  apparently  lost 
homily  De  baptizatis,  Chrysostom  had  said  apropos  of  an  enumeration 
of  the  effects  of  baptismal  grace:  «therefore  do  we  baptize  also  little 
children  (rä  naidia)  although  they  have  no  sins  (xaizoi  dpapzijpaza. 
ou%  eyovza).»  Julian  imagined3  that  these  words  were  equivalent 
to  the  Pelagian  negation  of  original  sin.  Augustine  rightly  replied4 
that  Chrysostom  meant  actual  sins  (propria  peccata),  as  the  plural 
apaprqpaza  and  the  context  prove.  Elsewhere,  on  several  occasions, 
Chrysostom  openly  taught  the  existence  of  original  sin,  especially  in 
the  following  five  passages:  Ep.  3  ad  Olymp.,  c.  j5;  De  resuscitat. 
Lazari  (?) ;  Horn.  9  in  Gen.,  n.  ^6;  Horn,  de  baptizatis  (?) ;  Horn.  10 
in  Rom. j  n.  1  2  4.1.    In  all  these  quotations,  nevertheless,   so  far  as 

1  Ib.,  lvi.   72.  2  Horn.    17  in  Hebr.,  n.   5   (Migne,  PG.,  lxiii.    133  —  134). 

3  Libri  iv  ad  Turbantium  episc.  4  Contra  Iulianum,  i.  22. 

5  Migne,  PG.,  Hi.  574.  6  Ib.,  liii.  78—79.  7  Ib.,  lx.  475—476  479 — 480. 

22* 


34-0  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

we  can  now  identify  them,  especially  in  the  quotation  from  the  com- 
mentary on  Rom.  v.  I2ff.,  the  interpretation  of  Chrysostom  does  not 
coincide  exactly  with  the  ideas  of  Augustine  on  the  nature  of  original 
sin.  He  frequently  repeats  that  the  consequences  or  penalties  of  the 
first  sin  affect  not  only  our  first  parents,  but  also  their  descendants, 
but  he  does  not,  however,  say  that  the  sin  itself  was  inherited  by 
their  posterity  and  is  inherent  in  their  nature.  In  general,  to  ap- 
preciate the  homiletic  teaching  of  Chrysostom  apropos  of  sin  it  is 
well  to  remember  that  he  had  in  mind  Manichaean  adversaries  with 
their  denial  of  free-will  and  their  doctrine  of  physically  irresistible 
concupiscence,  an  error  that  cut  away  the  foundations  of  all  mora- 
lity, and  one  he  opposed  with  all  his  might.  As  to  his  relations 
with  Pelagianism,  the  rule  that  St.  Augustine  formulated  on  another 
occasion 1  may  well  be  recalled :  Quid  opus  est,  ut  eorum  scrutemur 
opuscula  qui,  priusquam  ista  hseresis  oriretur,  non  habuerunt  necessi- 
tatem  in  hac  difficili  ad  solvendum  quaestione  versari?  quod  procul 
dubio  facerent,  si  respondere  talibus  cogerentur.  —  The  fact  that 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  was  the  father  of  Nestorianism  naturally 
raises  a  question  as  to  the  attitude  of  Chrysostom  toward  the  teaching 
of  his  friend.  Our  Saint  insists  with  earnestness  on  the  reality  and 
integrity  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ :  Christ  was  of  the  same  nature 
as  the  Father  (ttjq  adrfjc,  odalaq  zw  Ttarpi)'.  Horn.  I  in  Matth.,  n.  22; 
Horn.  4.  contra  Anomoeos,  n.  4.*;  He  had  also  a  human  body 
(Rom.  viii.  3),  not  sinful  like  ours,  but  in  nature  identical  with  ours 
(adpxa  .  .  .  avafidpTY]Tov  .  .  .  xj,  <p6aet  vijv  adrrjv  ijplv):  Horn.  13  in 
Rom.,  n.  54;  Horn.  J  in  Phil.,  ft.  2 — j5.  Despite  the  duality  of 
natures,  there  is  but  one  Christ:  «Remaining  what  He  was,  He 
assumed  what  He  was  not,  and  though  He  became  man,  remained 
God  the  Word  (epeve  tteog  Xoyoq  cov)  .  .  .  He  became  that  which  He 
assumed,  but  He  was  the  other.  Thus  there  is  no  confusion,  but  also 
no  separation.  One  God,  one  Christ,  the  Son  of  God  (1  Tim.  ii.  5)! 
But  when  I  say  one  (one  Christ),  I  mean  thereby  a  union  and  not  a 
commingling  (evcoatv  Myco,  od  ctoy^üctiu),  not  that  one  nature  is  trans- 
muted into  another,  but  is  united  to  that  other  (Horn.  7  in  Phil., 
n.  2  3)6.  He  does  not  anywhere  undertake  a  more  exact  and  precise 
determination  of  the  meaning  of  the  words  (elq  Xptaroq).  Theodore 
seeks  to  prove  that  in  Christ  there  could  be  only  a  moral,  not  a 
physical,  union  of  the  two  natures;  Chrysostom  confined  himself  to 
general  and  rather  popular  terms  and  phrases.  Even  in  the  absence 
of  such  a  mental  attitude,  no  special  stress  should  be  laid  on  the 
fact  that  Chrysostom,  like  Theodore,  makes  the  Logos  dwell  in  the 
man  Christ  as  in  a  temple  (In  Ps.  xliv.   3)7   and   in  the  commentary 

1  De  praedest.  sanctorum,   c.    14,  n.   27.  2  Migne,  PG.,  lvii.    17. 

3  Ib.,  xlviii.   732  f.  4  Ib.,  Ix.   515.  5  Ib.,  lxii.   229—232. 

6  Ib.,  lxii.  231   232.  7  Ib.,  lv.    186. 


§    74-      ST-   JOHN    CHRYSOSTOM.  341 

(of  doubtful  authenticity)  on  Prov.  ix.  i  K  It  is  true,  however,  that 
the  unique  personality  of  the  God-Man  does  not  strike  the  reader 
with  absolute  distinctness  in  the  writings  of  Chrysostom;  in  his 
presentation  of  our  Lord  the  divinity  and  the  humanity  appear  in 
a  way  as  apart  from  and  external  to  one  another;  nowhere  does  the 
one  and  sole  personal  principle  or  subject  of  the  life  and  sufferings 
of  Christ  stand  forth  in  unmistakable  outline.  Our  author  continues 
to  pay  homage  to  an  academical  opinion  of  the  Antiochene  school, 
i.  e.  the  notion  more  or  less  consciously  entertained  that  there  could 
not  be  in  Christ  a  perfect  and  complete  human  nature  without  a 
proper  (and  purely  human)  personality.  —  Historians  of  the  dogma 
of  the  Holy  Eucharist  have  always  held  Chrysostom  in  high  repute, 
so  that  he  is  called  the  doctor  eucharistiae ,  because  of  the  numerous 
clear,  positive  and  detailed  statements  that  he  makes  concerning  this 
doctrine.  Pointing  to  the  altar,  he  says:  «Christ  lies  there  slain» 
(eacpayusvoQ  Trpoxstzac,  b  Xpiaroq)2.  «His  body  lies  before  us  now»3. 
«That  which  is  in  the  Chalice  is  the  same  as  what  flowed  from  the 
side  of  Christ».  «What  is  the  Bread?  The  Body  of  Christ»  4.  «Reflect, 
O  man,  what  sacrificial  flesh  (ftocria)  thou  takest  in  thy  hand ! »  (it 
was  then  the  custom  to  place  the  Host  in  the  right  hand  of  the 
communicant),  to  what  table  thou  wilt  approach.  Remember  that, 
though  dust  and  ashes,  thou  dost  receive  the  Blood  and  the  Body 
of  Christ» 5.  In  order  to  make  as  clear  as  possible  the  truth  and 
reality  of  the  presence  of  our  Lord  in  the  Blessed  Sacrament,  Chryso- 
stom loves  to  transfer  to  the  substance  of  the  Body  and  the  Blood 
what  is  strictly  true  of  the  accidents  of  bread  and  wine.  «Not  only 
ought  we  to  see  the  Lord»,  he  says,  «but  we  ought  to  take  Him 
in  our  hands,  eat  Him,  set  our  teeth  upon  His  flesh  (eju7r/j£ai  touq 
odovraq  zfj  aapxi)  and  most  intimately  unite  ourselves  with  Him»6. 
»What  the  Lord  did  not  tolerate  on  the  Cross»,  i.  e.  the  breaking 
of  His  legs,  «He  tolerates  now  in  the  sacrifice  (em  T7jq  TTpoocpopäq) 
through  love  of  thee;  He  permits  Himself  to  be  broken  in  pieces 
(uMiyeTox  dtaxkcopLBvoQ)  that  all  may  be  filled  to  satiety» 7.  More- 
over, Chrysostom  reads  in  I  Cor.  xi.  24:  to  önep  rjpwv  xkwpevov, 
and  he  maintains  also  that  even  at  the  Last  Supper  the  Lord  was 
broken  in  parts  (exXda8r])%.  His  frequent  statements  that  now  the 
altar  and  now  the  tongue  of  the  communicant  are  stained  ((poi- 
viaaeattaij  by  the  Blood   of  the  Lord  may  be  explained  by  the  use 

1  Ib.,  lxiv.  680. 

2  Horn.   1   and  2  de  prodit.  Iudae,  n.  6:  Migne,  PG.,  xlix.   381   390. 

3  Horn.   50  in  Matth.,  n.   2  :  Ib.,  lviii.   507. 

4  Horn.   24  in   1    Cor.,  n.   1,   2:  Ib.,  lxi.   200. 

5  Horn,  in  diem  nat.  D.  N.  I.   C,   n.   7:  Ib.,  xlix.   361. 

6  Horn.  46  in  loan.,  n.   3 :  Ib.,  lix.   260. 

7  Horn.  24  in   1   Cor.,  n.   2  :  Ib.,  lxi.   200. 

8  Horn.  27  in   1    Cor.,  n.  3 — 4:  Ib.,  lxi.   228 — 229. 


342  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

of  red  wine  in  the  Mass1.  The  Body  and  Blood  of  the  Lord  are 
therefore  sacrificed,  and  eaten,  or  drunk.  But  the  sacrificial  priest 
and  the  host  at  the  banquet  is  none  other  than  the  Lord  Himself, 
«Believe  that  there  takes  place  now  the  same  banquet  as  that  in 
which  Christ  sat  at  table,  and  that  this  banquet  is  in  no  way 
different  from  that  (oddev  dievfjvoyev).  For  it  is  not  true  that  this 
banquet  is  prepared  by  a  man  while  that  was  prepared  by  Himself, 
but  both  this  banquet  and  that  one  are  prepared  by  Himself»2. 
«To-day  as  then,  it  is  the  Lord  who  worketh  and  offereth  all»3. 
The  priest  at  the  altar  is  only  an  instrument  in  the  hand  of  the 
Lord.  «We  assume  the  role  of  servants;  it  is  He  who  consecrates  and 
transmutes  (the  bread  and  wine)  (6  de  ayid^wv  aura  xat  juszaaxeodZcov 
adroq)*.  «It  is  not  man  who  causes  what  is  present  to  become  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  but  Christ  Himself  who  was  crucified  for 
us.  The  priest  is  the  representative  when  he  pronounces  those  words 
(of  consecration)  (ayjjpa  irXrjpajv,  ra  pypaza  (pfteyyupevoQ  exelva) ;  but 
the  power  and  the  grace  are  those  of  the  Lord.  He  says:  'This  is 
my  Body'.  This  word  changes  the  things  that  lie  before  us»  (tooto 
to  pvjpa  perafipuftpiCet  za  7rpox£tpeva)5.  For  the  terms  pzzaaxzuä&iv 
and  psrafipuftpteeiv  the  so-called  Liturgy  of  St.  Chrysostom  substitutes 
psraßdXXstu6.  On  the  strength  of  a  letter  ad  Ccesarium  tnonachum, 
Chrysostom  has  often  been  quoted,  curiously  enough,  in  behalf  of 
consubstantiation.  That  letter,  however,  of  which  the  Greek  text  is 
lost,  is  very  probably  spurious.  The  words  in  question  are  that  after 
the  consecration  the  Bread  is  called  dominicum  corpus,  etiamsi  natura 
panis  in  ipso  permansit1 .  But  here  natura  panis  clearly  means  the 
external  appearance  of  the  Bread  as  distinguished  from  its  substance. 

13.  complete  and  partial  editions.  —  The  writings  of  Chrysostom 
were  so  highly  esteemed  and  so  widely  diffused  that  we  possess  very  abund- 
ant and  excellent  materials  for  the  reconstruction  of  his  text,  partly  Greek 
codices  and  partly  ancient  versions  from  the  Greek.  So  far  only  a  small 
portion  of  these  manuscripts  has  been  drawn  upon.  We  owe  complete 
editions  of  his  works  to  the  labors  of  the  Jesuit  Fronton  du  Due  (Fronto 
Ducaeus),  of  the  Anglican  H.  Savile,  and  of  the  Benedictine  B.  de  Montfaucon. 
The  edition  of  Fronto  Ducaeus  was  published  at  Paris,  1609  — 1633  in 
12  vols.  (Greek  and  Latin)  and  reprinted  ib.,  1636;  Frankfort,  1697 — 1698 
1723;  Mayence,  1702.  The  Savile  edition  was  brought  out  at  Eton  in 
8  vols.,  161 2  (Greek  text  only).  The  edition  of  de  Montfaucon  was  publish 
ed  at  Paris,  1718 — 1738  in  13  vols.,  and  reprinted  at  Venice,  1734  to 
1 741  in  13  vols.;  again  1780  in  14  vols.  It  was  reprinted  also  at  Paris, 
with  a  few  corrections  1834 — 1840  in  13  vols.     The  same  edition,  with  a 

1  Horn.  24  in  I  Cor. ,  n.  I  :  lb. ,  lxi.  200 ;  De  sacerd.,  3,  4  :  lb. ,  xlviii.  642  ; 
Horn.  82  in  Matth.,  n.   5  :  Ib.,  lviii.   743 ;   Catech.   2  ad  ilium.,  c.   2  :  Ib.,  xlix.  234. 

2  Horn.   50  in  Matth.,   n    3:  Ib.,  lviii    507. 

3  Horn.  27  in    I   Cor.,  n.  4:  Ib.,  lxi.   229. 

4  Horn.  82  in  Matth.,   n.   5  :  Ib.,  lviii.   744. 

5  Horn,  i  and  (almost  identical)  Horn.  2  de  prodit.  Iudae,  n.  6 :  Ib.,  xlix.  380  and  389. 

6  Migne,  PG.,  lxiii.  916.  7  Ib.,  Hi.   758. 


§    74-      ST.   JOHN    CHRYSOSTOM.  343 

large  supplement,  is  in  Migne ,  PG. ,  xlvii— lxiv.  It  is  worthy  of  note 
that  in  Migne  the  90  homilies  on  Matthew  are  not  given  in  the  text  of 
de  Montfaucon,  but  according  to  the  later  edition  of  Field  (see  below). 
Modern  scholars  agree  that  the  best  text  is  that  given  by  Savile,  and  that 
to  the  Paris  edition  de  Montfaucon»  probably  did  no  more  than  lend  the 
authority  of  his  name,  at  least  so  far  as  text-criticism  goes ;  much  certainly 
remains  to  be  done.  Cf.  P.  de  Lagarde,  Ankündigung  einer  neuen  aus- 
gäbe der  griech.  übersezung  des  alten  testaments,  Göttingen,  1882,  p.  50. 
A  systematic  collection  of  all  the  Chrysostom-manuscripts  was  inaugurated 
by  j.  Paulson,  in  his  Symbolae  ad  Chrysostomum  Patrem  i — ii,  Lund,  1889 
to  1890,  and  Notice  sur  un  manuscrit  de  St.  Jean  Chrysostome  utilise  par 
Erasme  et  conserve  ä  la  bibliotheque  royale  de  Stockholm,  Lund,  1890.  — 
Since  the  Montfaucon  edition  some  works  of  Chrysostom  have  undergone 
a  new  critical  text-revision.  J.  A.  Bengel  (f  1752)  did  much  for  the  text 
of  the  De  sacerdotio;  his  edition  (Stuttgart,  1725,  Greek  and  Latin)  was 
widely  diffused  through  the  stereotyped  edition  of  Tauch?iitz  (Leipzig,  1825 
1865  1872  1887,  Greek  only).  The  Bengel  edition  is  also  the  basis  of 
the  separate  editions  (Greek  only)  of  De  sacerd.  of  E.  Leo,  Leipzig,  1834, 
and  C.  Seitmann,  Münster  and  Paderborn,  1887  (Greek  only).  D.  Euelpides 
undertook  a  new  recension  of  the  text;  so  far  as  I  know,  only  the  «first 
part»  of  his  edition,  an  introduction  and  the  first  book,  have  appeared, 
Athens,  1867.  A.  Cognet ,  De  Chrysostomi  dialogo  qui  inscribitur  irepl 
ispcocjuvY]?  X6701  e;,  Paris,  1900  (These).  J.  A.  Nairn's  edition  of  the  De 
sacerdotio  of  St.  John  Chrysostom  (in  Cambridge  Patristic  Texts)  appeared 
in  1906.  Chr.  Fr.  Matthaei  paid  special  attention  to  the  reclassification 
of  some  homily-texts,  first  edited  by  de  Montfaucon;  there  is  a  catalogue 
of  his  contributions  in  Fabricius-Harles ,  Bibl.  Gr.,  viii.  575.  A  thorough 
examination  of  the  text  of  the  90  homilies  on  Matthew  and  all  the 
homilies  on  the  Pauline  Epistles  was  undertaken  by  Fr.  Field;  the  text  of 
the  90  homilies  was  published  at  Cambridge,  1839,  3  vols.  (Greek  only), 
and  that  of  the  Pauline  homilies  at  Oxford,  1849  — 1855,  5  vols.  (Greek 
only).  The  Field  edition  passed  quite  unnoticed  in  Germany.  Single 
homilies  have  also  been  edited  with  more  or  less  text-revision;  thus  the 
(dubious  or  spurious)  Horn,  de  beato  Abraham  [Migne,  PG.,  1.  737 — 746) 
by  L.  de  Sinner,  Paris,  1835;  tne  Horn,  in  Flaviani  episc.  reditum 
(=  Horn.  21  de  statuis:  ib.,  xlix.  211 — 222)  by  L.  de  Sinner,  Paris,  1842, 
and  by  E.  Ragon ,  Paris,  1887  1893;  the  Horn,  in  Eutropium  (Ib.,  lii. 
391 — 396)  by  Fr.  Diibner  and  E.  Le franc,  Paris,  1855,  an^  Dv  E-  Sommer, 
Paris,  1889  1890  1893,  by  E.  R.  Maloney,  Boston,  1900;  the  Horn.  20 
in  1  Cor.  (Ib.,  lxi.  159 — 170)  by  A.  R.  Alvin,  Linköping,  1885;  L'Eloge 
des  saints  martyrs  et  homelie  apres  le  tremblement  de  terre,  by  E.  Ragon, 
Paris,  1903.  Fr.  W.  Lomler  published  at  Rudolstadt  (1840)  a  small  se- 
lection of  the  works  of  the  Saint:  Ioannis  Chrysostomi  opera  praestantis- 
sima  (Greek  and  Latin,  40,  and  8°  Greek  only).  The  collection  of  Fr. 
Diibner,  S.  Ioannis  Chrysostomi  opera  selecta  graece  et  latine  vol.  i  (the 
only  one  published),  Paris,  1861,  contains  more  and  is  based  on  a  better 
study  of  the  manuscripts.  Brief  but  remarkable  additions  to  the  text- 
criticism  of  some  works,  especially  homilies,  were  made  by  S.  Haidacher, 
in  Zeitschr.  f.  kath.  Theol.  (1894),  xviii.  405 — 411  762 — 764;  (1895)  xix. 
162—165  387—389;  (1897)  xxi.  398—400;  (1901)  xxv.  365—367;  (i9°2) 
xxvi.  190 — 194  380 — 385  and  lately  in  Studien  über  Chrysostomus-Eklogen, 
Vienna,  1902,  in  Sitzungsberichte  (1902),  cxliv.  J.  Cozza-Luzi  has  edited 
the  Horn,  de  vita  functis,  with  an  introduction  and  a  Latin  translation,  in 
the  Nova  Patrum  Bibliotheca,  part  I,  Rome,  1905,  x.  167 — 194.  The 
homily  on  the  words  «Hie  est   filius  meus  dilectus»  [Migne,  PG.,   lxiv.  ^ 


344  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

to  38)  belongs  to  Gregory,  a  priest  of  Antioch  (Ib.,  lxxxviii.  1871  f.).  — 
A.  Hilgenfeld ,  Des  Chrysostomos  Lobrede  auf  Polykarp,  in  Zeitschr.  für 
wissensch.  Theologie  (1902),  xlv.  569 — 572;  J.  Bidez ,  Description  d'un 
manuscrit  hagiographique  grec  palimpseste  avec  des  fragments  d'un  pan- 
egyrique  de  S.  Polycarp  attribue  ä  Saint  Jean  Cbrysostome,  in  Bulletin  de 
la  Classe  des  Letters  etc.  of  the  Royal  Academy  of  Brussels,  1900,  pp.  577 
to  624  (Ib.,  lxiv.  505—656). 

The  latest  editions  of  the  so-called  Liturgy  of  Chrysostom  are  those 
by  H.  A.  Daniel,  Codex  liturgicus  ecclesiae  orient.  (Cod.  lit.  eccl.  univ.  iv), 
Leipzig,  1853,  pp.327 — 420;  C.  A.  Swainson,  The  Greek  Liturgies,  chiefly 
from  original  authorities,  Cambridge,  1884,  pp.  88—94  99—148;  F.  E. 
Brightman ,  Liturgies  Eastern  and  Western,  Oxford,  1896,  i.  J.  Cozza- 
Luzi  has  published  the  Antiochene  Liturgy  from  a  Vatican  Ms. ,  in  the 
Nova  Patrum  Bibliotheca,  part  II,  x.  30 — 116.  On  this  liturgy  the  reader 
may  consult  F.  Probst ,  Liturgie  des  4.  Jahrhunderts  und  deren  Reform, 
Münster,  1893,  pp.  412—455.  The  liturgy  published  by  Dillmann  under 
the  title  Oratio  eucharistica  S.  Ioannis  Chrys.  in  his  Chrestomathia 
aethiopica,  Leipzig,  1866,  pp.  51 — 56,  differs  notably  from  the  Chrysostom- 
Liturgy.  A  German  version  of  Dillmann's  text  was  made  by  A.  Schulte, 
in  Der  Katholik  (1888),  i.  417 — 425.  In  his  edition  of  the  Didache, 
from  the  same  manuscript  of  the  year  1056,  Constantinople,  1883,  Proleg., 
pp.  109 — 147,  Ph.  Bryennios  contributed  some  new  readings  to  the  text 
of  the  Synopsis  Vet.  et  Nov.  Test.  [Migne,  PG. ,  lvi.  313—386),  as  also 
an  unedited  fragment  of  the  work  (The  synopsis  of  the  last  five  minor 
prophets).  See  §  63,  11  for  the  views  of  Zahn  and  Klostermann  apropos 
of  the  Pseud o-Athanasian  Synopsis,  and  C.  P.  Caspari,  Ungedruckte,  un- 
beachtete und  wenig  beachtete  Quellen  zur  Geschichte  des  Taufsymbols 
und  der  Glaubensregel,  Christiania,  1869,  ii.  225 — 244:  Zwei  Chryso- 
stomus  beigelegte  Homilien  über  das  Symbol  (Latin  homilies  of  the  end  of 
the  fifth  or  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  century,  already  edited,  but  not 
published  in  the  Montfaucon  edition).  —  The  reader  will  have  already 
noticed  that  many  writings  of  Chrysostom  were  discovered  after  the  edition 
of  Montfaucon,  while  others  previously  published  were  not  reprinted  by 
him.  The  Catena  on  Jeremias  published  by  M.  Ghisler  in  his  commentary 
on  that  prophet  (Lyons,  1623,  3  vols.)  contains  many  scholia  under  the 
name  of  Chrysostom  (Migne,  PG.,  lxiv.  739—1038).  In  the  Catena  on  Job 
edited  by  P.  Junius  (Patrick  Young),  London,  1637,  there  is  often  question 
of  Chrysostom  (Ib.,  lxiv.  505 — 656),  A.  M.  Bandini  (Graecae  Ecclesiae 
vet.  monumenta,  Florence,  1762— 1763,  ii.  182 — 184)  published  a  small 
Specimen  expositionis  S.  Ioannis  Chrys.  in  Iobum  (Ib.,  lxiv.  503 — 506). 
A.Mai  (Nova  Patr.  Bibl.  iv  2,  153 — 201)  published  from  a  Proverb-Catena 
several  scholia  under  the  name  of  Chrysostom  (lb.  lxiv.  659—740).  Simi- 
larly, J.  A.  Cramer  edited  (Oxford,  1840)  several  Chrysostom-scholia  from 
a  Catena  on  the  Catholic  Epistles  (Ib.,  lxiv.  1039 — 1062).  The  conclusion 
of  the  eighteenth  homily  on  Genesis,  wanting  in  earlier  editions,  was 
published  by  J.  A.  Mingarelli  (Graeci  codices  mss.  apud  Nanios  patricios 
asservati,  Bologne,  1784,  pp.  53 — 54;  Migne,  PG.,  lxi.v.  499 — 502).  Ban- 
ditti published  (1.  c,  ii.  1 — 23)  a  non-exegetical  discourse  of  doubtful  au- 
thenticity: Horn,  in  poenitentiam  Ninivitarum  (Ib.,  lxiv.  423 — 434).  Gallandi 
printed,  in  Bibl.  vet.  Patr.  xiv^  App.  136 — 140,  a  Horn,  de  eleemosyna 
et  in  divitem  ac  Lazarum  (Ib.,  lxiv.  433 — 444),  declared  spurious  by 
S.  Haidacher ,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  kathol.  Theol.  (1901),  xxv.  366.  Chr.  Fr. 
Matthaei,  Gregorii  Thessalon,  x  orationes,  Moscow,  1776,  pp.  126 — 135, 
made  known  a  Horn,  in  decern  millia  talenta  et  centum  denarios  et  de 
oblivione   iniuriarum  (Ib.,  lxiv.  443 — 452).     From  a  Dresden  codex  of  the 


§    74-      ST-   JOHN    CHRYSOSTOM.  345 

ninth  century  M.  Guil.  Theod.  Maur  Becher  edited  Ioannis  Chrys.  ho- 
miliae  v,  Leipzig,  1839,  miscellaneous  in  contents  and  of  doubtful  genuine- 
ness (Ib.,  lxiv.  451 — 492).  Haidacher  has  shown  (1.  c. ,  367)  that  one 
of  them,  the  seventh  among  the  spurious  homilies  on  the  words  «omne 
peccatum»  etc.  (Ib.,  lxiv.  465 — 473),  is  a  homily  of  Gregory  of  Nyssa  (Ib., 
xlvi.  490 — 498).  In  the  Spicil.  Rom.  iv,  pp.  lxviii— lxxvi,  Mai  made  known 
a  Horn,  de  s.  Pentecoste  (Ib.,  lxiv.  417 — 424).  A  Coptic  homily  of 
Chrvsostom  is  printed  in  Rossi,  i.  papiri  Copti  del  Museo  Egizio  di  Torino, 
Turin,   1888,  ii.   1. 

14.  versions.  —  Among  the  ancient  versions  of  the  works  of  Chryso- 
stom  the  Syriac,  Latin  and  Armenian  are  most  helpful  for  the  textual 
criticism  of  his  writings.  De  Lagarde  has  described  (Ankündigung  etc., 
p.  51)  the  unedited  Syriac  versions  in  the  sixth-,  seventh-  and  eighth-  cen- 
tury codices  of  the  British  Museum.  So  far  as  I  know  only  one  Syriac 
version  has  been  printed,  that  of  the  spurious  or  at  least  very  doubtful  Horn, 
de  eleemosyna  [Migne,  PG.,  Ix.  707 — 712)  under  the  title  Sermo  S.  Ioannis 
de  divitiis  et  paupertate,  in  Monumenta  syriaca.  Praefatus  est  P.  Zingerle, 
Innsbruck,  1869,  i.  117 — 123.  —  A  certain  Anianus  (Annianus),  probably 
the  deacon  of  that  name  from  Celeda  who  wrote  (ca.  418)  a  polemical 
pro-Pelagian  work  against  Jerome  {Hier.,  Ep.  143,  2),  translated  several 
works  of  Chrysostom  into  Latin.  On  Anianus  see  Schoenemann,  Bibl.  hist.- 
litt.  Patrum  lat.,  ii.  473 — 480.  Montfaucon's  edition  contains  the  version 
by  Anianus  of  the  first  eight  homilies  on  Matthew  {Migne,  PG.,  lviii.  975 
to  1058)  and  of  the  seven  panegyrics  on  Saint  Paul  (Ib.,  1.  471 — 514). 
The  earlier  editions  of  Chrysostom  contain  a  Latin  version  of  25  homilies; 
cf.  G.  Mercati,  Note  di  letteratura  bibl.  e  crist.  antica  (Studi  e  Testi,  v), 
1 90 1 ,  pp.  140 — 144.  W.  Schmitz  is  of  opinion  that  Anianus  made  the 
translation  or  paraphrase  of  the  two  books  on  penance  attributed  to  Chryso- 
stom: Monumenta  tachygraphica  codicis  Parisiensis  lat.  2718,  transcripsit, 
adnotavit,  edidit  Guil.  Schmitz,  Hannover,  1882 — 1883,  fasc.  2,  S.  Johannis 
Chrys.  De  cordis  compunctione  libros  ii  latine  versos  continens.  The  34 
homilies  on  Hebrews  were  translated  into  Latin  at  the  suggestion  of  Cassio- 
dorus  (Instit.  i.  8)  by  a  certain  Mutianus;  they  are  included  in  the  Montfaucon 
edition  [Migne,  PG.,  lxiii.  237 — 456);  cf.  Looshorn,  Die  lateinischen  Über- 
setzungen des  hl.  Joh.  Chrysostomus  im  Mittelaialter,  nach  den  Hand- 
schriften der  Münchener  Hof-  und  Staatsbibliothek,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  kath. 
Theol.  (1880),  iv.  788 — 793.  —  Many  Armenian  versions  have  been  edited 
by  the  Mechitarists  of  San  Lazzaro  near  Venice.  They  published  in  18 18 
two  quarto  volumes  with  «Orations»  of  Chrysostom,  in  1826  three  octavo 
volumes  followed  containing  the  Matthew-  (and  some  other)  homilies. 
The  Encomium  S.  Gregorii  Armenorum  Illuminatoris  [Migne,  PG. ,  lxiii. 
943 — 954),  non  extant  in  Greek  and  of  doubtful  authenticity,  was  published 
in  Armenian  (1853),  in  Armenian  and  Latin  (1878).  In  1861  there  ap- 
peared another  volume  of  «Orations»,  and  in  1862  two  volumes  entitled 
»Exposition  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul»  (cf.  de  Lagarde,  1.  c,  pp.  52 — 54  for 
the  contents  of  these  three  volumes).  Finally  in  1887  they  printed  an 
octavo  edition  of  the  Exposition  of  Isaias  in  a  defective  Latin  version 
made  from  the  Armenian.  The  Mechitarists  published  also  (Venice,  1839) 
an  Armenian  commentary  on  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  compiled  from  the 
works  of  Chrysostom  and  St.  Ephrem  and  (Vienna,  1849,  Armenian  and 
Greek)  a  «collection  of  ancient  versions  from  the  original  Greek»  that 
begins  with  some  Matthew-homilies  of  Chrysostom.  —  Among  the  most 
recent  German  versions  are  the  following:  Chrysostomus-Postille.  Eine 
Auswahl  des  Schönsten  aus  den  Predigten  des  hl.  Chrysostomus.  Für 
Prediger   und   zur  Privaterbauung.     Ausgewählt  und   aus   dem  Grundtexte 


346  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

übersetzt  von  C.  J.  Hefele,  Tübingen,  1845  1850  1857.  Fr.  Knors,  Ho- 
milien  über  die  sonntäglichen  Episteln  des  kath.  Kirchenjahrs,  nach  Chryso- 
stomus, Schaffhausen ,  1854;  Id.  ,  Des  hl.  Joh.  Chrysostomus  Homilien 
über  das  Evangelium  des  hl.  Matthäus.  Aus  dem  Griechischen  übersetzt, 
Regensburg,  1857,  2  vols.;  Id. ,  Die  Homilien  des  hl.  Joh.  Chrysostomus 
über  das  Evangelium  des  hl.  Johannes,  Paderborn,  1862.  J.  Fluck  began 
a  version  of  the  ascetical  works  of  our  Saint,  Freiburg,  1864,  i.  Ten 
volumes  of  the  Bibliothek  der  Kirchenväter  (1869 — 1884)  are  devoted  to 
the  versions  of  selected  works  of  Chrysostom :  the  six  books  on  the  priest- 
hood, the  work  on  virginity,  the  (first)  letter  to  Theodore,  and  the  nine 
homilies  on  penance  were  translated  by  J.  Chr.  Mitterrutzner  and  J.  Rupp 
(vol.  i) ;  the  2 1  homilies  on  the  statues  by  Mitterrutzner  (vol.  ii) ;  selected 
discourses  with  the  letters  to  Pope  Innocent  and  to  Olympias  by  M.  Schmitz 
(vol.  iii);  all  the  homilies  on  the  Pauline  Epistles  by  J.  Wimmer,  Mitter- 
rutzner, A.  Hartl,  J.  Schwertschlager,  N.  Lieber t,  B.  Sepp  (vol.  iv — x).  — 
An  English  version  of  many  writings  of  Chrysostom  is  published  in  the 
select  Library  01  Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers  of  the  Christian  Church 
(series  I),  edited  by  Ph.  Schaff  (vol.  ix — xiv),  New  York,  1888 — 1890.  — 
A  French  version  of  all  writings  of  the  Saint  was  brought  out  under  the 
direction  of  M.  Jeannin,  Bar-le-Duc,  1861 — 1867,  and  reprinted,  Arras, 
1887 — 1888,  in  eleven  volumes. 

15.  works  on  chrysostom.  —  J.  Stilting,  De  S.  Ioanne  Chrys.  com- 
mentarius  historicus,  in  Acta  SS.  Sept.,  Antwerp,  1753,  iv.  401 — 709. 
Fabricius- Hartes,  Bibl.  Gr.,  viii.  454 — 583  :  De  S.  Ioanne  Chrys.  J.  de  Pubeis, 
De  peccato  originali  tractatus  theologicus,  c.  xxv.  Vindiciae  Ioannis  Chryso- 
stomi  (reprinted,  Würzburg,  1857).  J.Habert,  Theologiae  Graecorum  Patrum 
circa  materiam  gratiae  libri  tres,  c.  xxiv:  De  mente  S.  Chrysostomi  etc. 
(reprinted,  Würzburg,  1863).  A.  Neander,  Der  hl.  Joh.  Chrysostomus  und 
die  Kirche,  besonders  des  Orients,  in  dessen  Zeitalter,  Berlin,  1821 — 1822, 
2  vols.,  2.  ed.  1832,  3.  ed.  1848  1858.  Villemain,  L'eloquence  chretienne, 
Paris.  Fr.  Böhringer,  Die  Kirche  Christi  und  ihre  Zeugen  oder  die  Kirchen- 
geschichte in  Biographien,  part  IV,  Zürich,  1846,  i.  1  — 160:  Chrysostomus; 
161 — 169:  Olympias.  Fr.  and  P.  Böhringer,  Johannes  Chrysostomus  und 
Olympias,  2.  ed.,  Stuttgart,  1876.  E.  Martin,  S.  Jean  Chrysostome,  ses 
ceuvres  et  son  siecle,  Montpellier,  i860,  3  vols.  Rochet,  Histoire  de  S.  Jean 
Chrysostome,  patriarche  de  Constantinople,  Paris,  1866,  2  vols.  A.  Thierry, 
S.  Jean  Chrysostome  et  l'imperatrice  Eudoxie,  Paris,  1874.  Fr.  X.  Funk, 
Joh.  Chrysostomus  und  der  Hof  von  Konstantinopel,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr. 
(1875),  lvii.  449—480,  and  in  Kirchengeschichtliche  Abhandlungen  und 
Untersuchungen  (1899),  ii.  23 — 44.  F.  Ludwig,  Der  hl.  Joh.  Chrysostomus 
in  seinem  Verhältnis  zum  byzantinischen  Hof,  Brunsberg,  1883.  A.  Puech, 
St.  Jean  Chrysostome,  Paris,  1900  (Les  Saints).  P.  Ubaldi,  La  Sinode  ad 
Quercum  dell'  anno  403,  in  Memorie  della  R.  Accademia  delle  scienze  di 
Torino,  ser.  II  (1902),  lii.  33 — 97.  A.  Caldana,  S.  Giovanni  Crisostomo. 
Studio  storico  letterario,  Vicenza,  1899.  J.  Lutz,  Chrysostomus  und  die 
übrigen  berühmtesten  Redner  alter  und  neuer  Zeit,  Tübingen,  1846,  2.  ed., 
1859.  P.  Albert,  St.  Jean  Chrysostome  considere  comme  orateur  populaire, 
Paris,  1858.  L.  da  Volturino,  Studii  oratorii  sopra  S.  Giovanni  Crisostomo 
rispetto  al  modo  di  predicare  dignitosamente  e  fruttuosamente,  Quaracchi, 
1884.  Matthes,  Der  Unterschied  in  der  Predigtweise  des  Chrysostomus  und 
Augustinus,  in  Pastoralblätter  f.  Homiletik,  Katechetik  und  Seelsorge  (1888), 
xxx.  40 — 71.  L.  Ackermann,  Die  Beredsamkeit  des  hl.  Joh.  Chrysostomus, 
Würzburg,  1889.  Th.  Förster ,  Chrysostomus  in  seinem  Verhältnis  zur 
antiochenischen  Schule,  ein  Beitrag  zur  Dogmengeschichte,  Gotha,  1869. 
F.  H.  Chase,  Chrysostom :    a  Study   in   the  History  of  Biblical  Interpreta- 


§    74-      ST-   JOHN    CHRYSOSTOM.  347 

tion,  London,  1887.  S.  Haidacher ,  Die  Lehre  des  hl.  Joh.  Chrysostomus 
über  die  Schriftinspiration,  Salzburg,  1897.  S.  K.  Gifford,  Pauli  epistolas 
qua  forma  legerit  Joh.  Chrysostomus,  Halle,  1902.  P.  Batiffol ,  Quelques 
homilies  de  St.  Jean  Chrysostome  et  la  version  gothique  des  Ventures,  in 
Revue  biblique  (1899),  viii.  566 — 572.  A.  Nägele,  Die  Eucharistielehre 
des  hl.  Joh.  Chrysostomus,  Freiburg  i.  Br.,  1900  (Strassburger  theol.  Studien, 
iii.  4 — 5).  F.  Rem ,  Die  Geschichte  des  Messopferbegriffs,  i.  391 — 415: 
Ioannes  Chrysostomus,  Freising-Miinchen ,  1901.  E.  Michaud ,  St.  Jean 
Chrysostome  et  l'Eucharistie,  in  Revue  internat.  de  Theol.  (1903),  pp.  93  to 
in.  jf.  Chapman,  St.  Chrysostomus  on  St.  Peter,  in  Dublin  Review  (1903), 
pp.  73 — 99.  V.  Schmitt,  Die  Verheissung  der  Eucharistie  (St.  John,  c.  vi) 
bei  den  Antiochenern  Cyrillus  von  Jerusalem  und  Joh.  Chrysostomus,  Würz- 
burg, 1903.  In  Religionsgeschichtl.  Untersuchungen,  Bonn,  1889,  i.  215  to 
240,  H.  Usener  touches  on  the  date  of  some  of  the  homilies  of  Chryso- 
stom.  In  Jahrbücher  der  christl.  Kirche  unter  dem  Kaiser  Theodosius  d.  Gr., 
Freiburg  i.  Br.,  1897,  pp.  565  —  574,  G.  Rauschen  describes  the  literary 
labors  of  Chrysostom  in  the  period  that  preceded  his  appearance  as 
public  preacher  at  Antioch.  E.  Michaud,  L'Ecclesiologie  de  St.  Jean  Chryso- 
stome, in  Revue  Internat.  de  Theologie  (1903),  pp.  491 — 530.  Dom  Baur, 
S.  Chrysostome  et  ses  ceuvres  dans  l'histoire  litteraire,  Louvain,  1907. 
G.  Bareille,  S.  Jean  Chrysostome.  A  series  of  articles  in  the  Revue  Tho- 
miste.  The  first  article  appeared  in  1907  (pp.  561 — 583).  —  The  letters 
of  Chrysostom  have  been  studied  by  P.  Ubaldi ,  in  Bessarione:  Di  una 
lettera  (n.  125,  ad  Ciriacum)  di  S.  Gio.  Crisostomo  (v.  1900 — 1901  \  viii. 
244 — 264;  it  is  not  the  work  of  Chrysostom);  La  lettera  233  al  vescovo 
di  Antiochia  (ib.,  ser.  ii.  1,  1901 — 1902,  69—79;  it  is  not  the  work  of 
Chrysostom) ;  Gli  epiteti  esornativi  nelle  lettere  di  S.  Gio.  Crisostomo  (ib., 
304—332). 

16.  NECTARIUS    OF    CONSTANTINOPLE.       MARCUS     DIACONUS.    —    NectanUS 

(see  no.  3)  left  a  Sermo  de  festo  S.  Theodori  et  de  ieiunio  et  eleemosyna 
[Migne,  PG. ,  xxxix.  1821  — 1840).  —  The  Vita  S.  Porphyrii  (see  no.  4), 
written  about  420  by  Marcus  Diaconus  and  historically  useful  in  several 
ways,  was  formerly  known  to  us  only  through  a  very  defective  Latin  ver- 
sion of  Gentianus  Hervetus  (f  1584),  in  Gallandi ,  Bibl.  vet.  Patr.  ix; 
Migne,  PG.,  lxv;  the  Greek  original  was  edited  by  M.  Haupt,  in  Abhand- 
lungen der  k.  preuss.  Akad.  der  Wissensch.  zu  Berlin  (1874),  pp.  171 — 215, 
and  separately  in  1875.  A  new  edition  was  brought  out  by  the  Sodales 
societatis  philologae  Bonnensis,  Leipzig,  1875.  See  A.  Nuth,  De  Marci  Dia- 
coni  Vita  Porphyrii  episc.  Gazensis  (Dissert,  inaug.),  Bonn,  1897.  From 
395 — 416  Porphyry  had  been  the  bishop  of  Gaza,  once  the  capital  of  the 
Philistines,  and  after  a  long  and  vigorous  conflict  had  dealt  a  deathblow 
to  the  ancient  and  stubborn  heathenism  of  that  city.  The  deacon  Marcus 
was  his  inseparable  companion  and  has  left  us  a  vivid  and  reliable  narra- 
tive of  this  conflict  with  dying  paganism.  No  trace  has  yet  been  found 
of  the  work  quoted  in  c.  88,  in  which  Marcus  had  collected  the  pro- 
ceedings between  Porphyry  and  the  female  Manichaean,  Julia. 

17.  ACACIUS      OF     BERCEA.       SEVERIANUS      OF     GABALA.        ANTIOCHUS     OF 

PTOLEMAis.  —  These  three  and  Theophilus  of  Alexandria  were  the  four 
bishops  whom  Chrysostom  refused  to  accept  as  his  judges  (see  no.  4).  It 
is  probable  that  Acacius  had  been  deceived  by  the  intrigues  of  the  patri- 
arch's enemies.  He  was  for  some  fifty  years  bishop  of  Beroea  (or  Aleppo) 
in  Syria  and  died  in  432  at  the  age  of  no  (100?)  years.  We  have  from 
his  pen  three  letters  and  a  profession  of  faith  [Migne,  PG. ,  lxxvii.  1445 
to  1448).  Cf.  G.  Bickell,  Ausgewählte  Gedichte  der  syrischen  Kirchen- 
väter Cyrillonas,    Baläus,    Isaak    von   Antiochien    und   Jakob    von    Sarug, 


348  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

Kempten,  1872  (Bibl.  der  Kirchenväter),  pp.  83—89.  —  Severianus, 
bishop  of  Gabala  near  Laodicea  in  Syria  (f  post  408),  had  already  abused 
the  confidence  of  Chrysostom  in  a  very  shameful  way;  cf.  F.  Ludwig, 
Der  hl.  Joh.  Chrysostomus  in  seinem  Verhältnis  zum  byzantinischen  Hof, 
Brunsberg,  1883,  pp.  51 — 54.  He  was  well-known  as  a  preacher;  Gen- 
nadius  (De  viris  ill.,  c.  21)  calls  him  in  homiliis  declamator  ad- 
mirabilis.  He  has  left  homilies  and  biblical  commentaries  [Gennadius, 
1.  c. ;  Theodoret ,  Dial.,  i  ii  iii ;  Mig?ie,  PG.,  lxxxih.  80  210  308);  Cosmas 
Indicopl. ,  Topogr.  christ.  vii  x  [Migne,  PG.,  lxxxviii.  373  417  ff.).  Some 
of  the  former  are  extant,  but  in  the  manuscripts  are  usually  attributed 
to  Chrysostom,  while  external  testimonies  and  internal  evidences  point 
to  Severianus  as  their  true  author.  Of  the  following  discourses  some  are 
now  looked  on  with  certainty,  and  some  with  probability,  as  fragments  of 
his  writings:  Orationes  sex  in  mundi  creationem  [Migne,  lvi.  429 — 500), 
Oratio  de  serpente  quem  Moyses  in  cruce  suspendit  (Ib.,  lvi.  499 — 516), 
In  illud  Abrahae  dictum  Gen.  xxiv.  2  (Ib.,  lvi.  553 — 564),  De  ficu  arefacta 
(Ib.,  lix.  585 — 590),  Contra  Iudaeos  (Ib.,  lxi.  793 — 802;  cf.  lxv.  29  f.),  De 
sigillis  librorum  (Ib.,  lxiii.  531 — 544),  In  Dei  apparitionem  (Ib.,  lxv.  15—26), 
De  pace  (Ib.,  Iii.  425 — 428).  The  latter  homily  is  found  in  Migne  in  Latin 
only  and  in  a  fragmentary  shape ;  the  original  and  complete  Greek  text 
was  edited  by  A.  Papadopulos-Kerameus,  'AvaXsx-a  ispojoXujJUTixrjc  sTayuoXo-yias, 
St.  Petersburg,  1891,  i.  15  —  26.  The  Latin  homily  De  pythonibus  et 
maleficiis  [Migne,  PG.,  lxv.  27  —  28)  is  not  by  Severianus  but  by  St.  Peter 
Chrysologus  (cf.  Fr.  Liver ani ,  Spicilegium  Liberianum,  Florence,  1863,  i. 
'192  — 193).  An  ancient  Armenian  version  of  15  homilies  under  the  name 
of  Severianus  was  published  by  Aucher :  Severiani  sive  Seberiani  Gabalo- 
rum  episc.  Emesensis  homiliae  nunc  primum  editae,  ex  antiqua  versione 
armena  in  latinum  sermonem  translatae  per  J.  B.  Aucher,  Venice,  1827. 
The  reader  will  find  there  the  homilies  already  mentioned:  In  illud  Abrahae 
dictum  Gen.  xxiv.  2,  and  De  ficu  arefacta  (Horn.  7,  250 — 293,  and  Horn. 
13,  414 — 427).  The  tenth  homily  in  this  collection  (370—401),  on  baptism, 
is  the  Horn.  13  of  St.  Basil  M.,  in  Migne,  PG.,  xxxi.  423 — 444;  cf.  §  67,  14. 
There  is  in  Pitra,  Analecta  sacra  et  classica,  Paris,  1888,  part  I,  71  f.,  a 
little  fragment  without  a  title  attributed  to  Severianus;  Pitra  holds  it  to  be 
a  fragment  of  his  homily  Contra  haereticos  quoted  in  Sacra  Parallela 
[Migne,  PG.,  xcvi.  533).  —  Antiochus,  bishop  of  Ptolemais  (Acco)  in  Phoeni- 
cia, seems  to  have  passed  away  shortly  after  the  death  of  St.  Chryso- 
stom. His  writings  have  perished  [Gennad.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  20).  Quota- 
tions from  him  are  found  in  Theodoret  of  Cyrus  and  Leontius  of  Byzan- 
tium [Migne,  PG.,  lxxxiii.  205;  Ixxxvi   1,   1316;  lxxxvi  2,   2044). 

l8.      PALLADIUS.       ATTICUS     OF     CONSTANTINOPLE.       CONST  ANTIUS    OF    AN- 

TiocH.  —  The  oft-quoted  name  of  Palladius  is  found  among  those  of  the 
bishops  who  refused  to  communicate  with  the  intruders  Arsacius  and  At- 
ticus,  and  were  compelled  to  fly  from  their  sees  (see  no.  5).  He  is  perhaps 
identical  with  the  Palladius  who  wrote  the  Historia  Lausiaca  (§  79,  4). 
His  Dialogus  de  vita  S.  Ioannis  Chrysostomi  [Migne,  PG. ,  xlvii.  5  —  82), 
the  result  of  a  conversation  (about  408)  with  the  Roman  deacon  Theodore, 
is  looked  on  as  one  of  the  principal  sources  for  the  last  period  of  the  life 
of  Chrysostom,  particularly  after  his  elevation  to  the  patriarchate.  The 
editions  of  this  work  and  its  relative  «literature»  may  be  seen  in  Fessler- 
Jungmann,  Institt.  Patrol,  ii  1,  54  209.  —  Atticus  (see  no.  5)  died  October  10., 
425,  and  is  honored  as  a  saint  by  the  Greeks  on  Jan.  8.  Under  his  name 
there  appear  in  Migne,  PG.,  lxv.  637 — 652,  a  notitia  (from  the  Acta  SS.), 
a  Letter  and  references  to  three  other  Letters;  cf.  v.  Hefele,  in  Wetzer 
and  Weite's  Kirchenlexikon,  2.  ed.,  i.  1564 — 1566.     Also  C.  Verschaffet,  in 


§    75-      THE    SO-CALLED    APOSTOLIC    CONSTITUTIONS.  349 

Vacant-Mangenot's  Dictionnaire  de  la  The*ol.  Catholique,  Paris,  1903,  i. 
2220—  2221.  —  Among  the  242  letters  in  the  correspondence  of  Chrysostom 
[Migne ,  PG.,  Hi;  see  no.  9)  the  numbers  237  —  241,  and  probably  233, 
are  from  his  friend  Constantius,  a  priest  of  Antioch. 

§  75.    The  so-called  Apostolic  Constitutions. 

I.  COMPOSITION.  CONTENTS.  SOURCES.  —  «Constitutions  of  the 
Holy  Apostles»  (diarayai  or  Scard^scQ  rcbv  aytcov  anoaroXwv)  is  the 
name  given  to  a  compilation  of  ecclesiastical  law  that  may  be  divided 
into  three  parts.  The  first  part  includes  the  first  six  books  and  is 
only  an  enlarged  recension  of  the  Didascalia  Apostolorum  (§  46). 
In  the  details  of  his  work  the  unknown  editor  was  guided  by  the 
nature  of  the  materials  that  lay  before  him.  While  he  found  no  reason 
to  modify  seriously  the  moral  prescriptions  of  the  Didascalia,  the 
important  changes  in  ecclesiastical  conditions  suggested  a  thorough 
modification  in  all  that  appertained  to  the  constitution,  worship,  and 
other  interests  of  the  Church.  The  fiction  of  apostolic  authorship 
was  retained,  but  it  was  added  that  Clement  of  Rome  had  sent  the 
work  in  the  name  of  all  the  apostles  to  the  bishops  and  the  other 
priests  (vi.  18;  cf.  the  so-called  Clementina  §  26,  3).  The  second 
part  of  the  work  is  taken  up  by  the  seventh  book  which  in  its  first 
half(cc.i — 32)  is  only  a  paraphrase  and  enlargement  of  the  Didache 
(§  6);  in  the  second  half  (cc.  33 — 49)  are  found  various  prayer-for- 
mulae (cc.  33 — 38  47 — 49),  rules  for  the  instruction  of  catechumens 
and  the  administration  of  baptism  (cc.  39 — 45),  and  a  list  of  the 
bishops  consecrated  by  the  apostles  (c.  46).  Even  in  this  second 
half,  ancient  material  has  been  more  or  less  worked  over  and  adapted. 
The  third  and  last  part  of  the  work,  the  eighth  book,  is  also  its 
most  valuable  portion ;  it  is  divided  into  three  sections :  on  the  charis- 
mata (cc.  1  2),  the  ecclesiastical  orders  (cc.  3 — 26),  and  the  canons 
(cc.  27 — 47).  The  short  section  on  the  scope  and  salutary  nature 
of  the  charismata  is  probably  taken  from  the  7iep\  yapiafiuxov  of 
Hippolytus  (§  54,  3),  a  work  known  to  us,  however,  only  by  its 
title.  The  second  section  regulates  the  ordination-services  for  the 
various  ecclesiastical  grades  of  the  clergy,  the  bishop  (cc.  4  5),  the 
priest  (c.  16),  the  deacon  (cc.  17  18),  the  deaconess  (cc.  19  20), 
the  sub-deacon  (c.  21),  the  lector  (c.  22).  As  the  newly  made  bishop 
was  obliged  to  offer  up  the  holy  sacrifice  immediately  after  his  con- 
secration, the  rubrics  of  the  consecration  rite  are  followed  by  a 
complete  explanation  of  the  liturgy  of  the  Mass  (cc.  6 — 15);  finally 
other  ecclesiastical  grades  are  conferred  without  imposition  of  hands  : 
they  are  the  confessors  (c.  23),  the  virgins  (c.  24),  the  widows  (c.  25), 
the  exorcists  (c.  26).  In  this  second  section  the  compiler  probably 
followed  the  ecclesiastical  writings  before  him  less  closely  than  the 
custom  of  his  own  time  and  province.     In   the   third   section   which 


350  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

treats  of  the  ecclesiastical  canons,  instructions  and  prayers  for  divine 
service,  rules  for  the  various  ecclesiastical  grades,  criteria  for  the 
examination  of  proselytes,  and  regulations  for  ecclesiastical  solemnities 
are  rather  promiscuously  collected.  The  collection  closes  with  85 
«ecclesiastical  canons  of  the  holy  apostles»  (c.  47)  that  correspond, 
in  form,  to  the  ordinary  canons  of  the  ancient  councils;  their  con- 
tents also  reflect  the  life  of  the  clergy,  the  manner  of  its  selection 
and  ordination,  its  morality  and  official  duties.  Of  these  canons  20 
are  taken  from  the  decrees  of  the  Synod  of  Antioch,  in  341.  The 
last  canon  enumerates  the  books  of  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament, 
with  the  exception  of  the  Apocalypse,  but  includes  among  the  Catholic 
Epistles  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  «two  letters  of  Clement  and 
the  Constitutions  (at  dtarayai)  proposed  (7zpoar.tipcovrjp.iva1)  to  you 
bishops  by  me,  Clement,  but  which,  because  of  the  secret  things  they 
contain  (ra  iv  omtoiq  fioarixd)  ought  not  to  be  made  known  to  all. » 
2.  UNITY  OF  ORIGIN,  TIME  AND  PLACE  OF  COMPOSITION.  —  The 
monograph  of  Funk  (1891)  has  cast  much  light  not  only  on  the 
sources  but  also  on  the  origin  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions.  One 
of  his  most  important  discoveries  is  that  from  beginning  to  end  the 
whole  work  is  the  product  of  one  hand,  and  not  a  compilation  from 
various  writings  of  uncertain  and  different  dates.  Apart  from  the 
manuscript  tradition,  the  identity  of  authorship  is  vouched  for  by  the 
close  connexion  of  the  different  parts,  the  literary  relationship  of  all 
the  books,  and  various  clear  indications  of  identity  of  time  and  place 
of  composition.  The  eighth  book,  it  is  true,  offers  a  peculiarity  of 
structure  (after  the  fourth  chapter  the  apostles  speak  in  their  own 
names),  but  this  results  from  the  special  nature  of  the  subject-matter 
that  easily  falls  into  separate  sentences.  The  eighth  book  does  contra- 
dict in  detail  certain  regulations  of  the  preceding  books,  but  we 
must  remember  that  from  compilations  of  this  kind  one  cannot  demand 
the  perfect  unity  proper  to  an  independent  work.  Until  lately,  the  date 
of  compilation,  of  the  first  six  books  at  least,  was  placed  about  the 
middle  of  the  fourth  century;  it  was  taken  for  granted  that  Epiphanius, 
writing  about  375,  had  known  and  used  at  least  this  portion  of  the 
Apostolic  Constitutions.  But  Funk  has  shown  that  the  expressions  of 
Epiphanius  in  question  1  refer  to  the  Didascalia  Apostolorum  and  not 
to  the  Constitutions  of  the  Apostles.  It  is  clear  from  internal  evidence 
that  the  latter  were  compiled  in  Syria  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  or  at  the 
beginning  of  the  fifth  century.  The  chief  positive  indications  of  their 
date  are  the  celebration  of  Christmas  on  December  25.  (v.  13;  viii.  33) 
and  the  equalization  of  the  Sabbath  with  the  Sunday  as  an  ecclesiastical 
holiday  (v.  20;  vii.  23;  viii.  33  47,  can.  66).  On  the  other  hand,  the 
fact  that  no  knowledge  of  the  Nestorian  controversy  is  shown,  hinders 


1  Haer.   45,  4;    70,    10   n    12;   75,  6;   80,   7. 


§    75-      THE    SO-CALLED    APOSTOLIC    CONSTITUTIONS.  35  I 

us  from  assigning  the  work  to  a  period  later  than  the  commencement 
of  the  fifth  century.  That  Syria  was  the  home  of  the  compiler  appears 
partly  from  the  Syrian  calculation  of  the  months,  but  still  more  from 
the  liturgy  of  the  Mass  (viii.  6 — 15),  which  very  much  resembles, 
both  in  fundamental  structure  and  also  in  the  language  of  the  prayers, 
the  liturgy  of  Antioch  about  the  year  400,  such  as  it  appears  e.  g. 
in  the  works  of  Chrysostom.  Important  external  testimony  confirms 
the  conclusions  based  on  internal  evidence:  thus,  the  interpolator 
of  the  letters  of  Saint  Ignatius  of  Antioch  not  only  quotes1  the 
Apostolic  Constitutions  but  makes  an  extensive  use  of  them.  Still  more : 
a  surprising  parallelism  both  of  thought  and  of  diction  which  occurs, 
makes  it  highly  probable  that  this  Apollinarist  interpolator  of  Saint 
Ignatius  is  also  the  compiler  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  (§  9,  1}. 
At  the  same  time  he  does  not  seem  to  have  had  in  view  any  special 
purpose;  he  was  content  with  combining  and  amplifying  ancient 
ecclesiastical  writings. 

3.  ITS  literary  HISTORY.  —  The  assertion  of  the  compiler  was 
believed;  for  over  a  thousand  years  his  work  was  accepted  as  the 
work  of  the  apostles  or  of  Clement  writing  in  their  name.  The  so- 
called  Quinisext  Council  of  the  year  692  declared  (can.  2)  that  «the 
holy  synod  decrees  that  the  85  Canons  handed  down  under  the 
name  of  the  holy  and  venerable  apostles  . . .  shall  also  in  the  future 
remain  immutable.  In  these  canons,  indeed,  it  is  stated  that  we  must 
accept  their  constitutions  as  drawn  up  by  Clement  (rag  Siä  KXrj/ievrog 
diardssig).  But  because  heterodox  hands,  to  the  detriment  of  the 
Church,  have  long  ago  added  things  spurious  and  foreign  to  (Catholic) 
piety...,  we  have  thought  it  opportune  to  reject  the  afore-said  Con- 
stitutions». In  this  way  a  binding  force  in  the  canons  was  acknowledged 
while  the  apostolic  origin  of  the  Constitutions  was,  in  a  general  way, 
asserted.  The  influence  of  the  latter,  however,  was  always  very 
slight  and  almost  imperceptible  in  the  Greek  Church.  Nevertheless, 
versions  and  epitomes  of  them  were  to  be  found  throughout  the 
Christian  East,  while  in  the  West,  with  exception  of  a  part  of  the 
canons,  they  remained  utterly  unknown  throughout  the  Middle  Ages. 

4.  editions,  versions,  researches.  —  The  first  edition  of  the  Apo- 
stolic Constitutions,  and  in  its  way  an  excellent  one,  was  brought  out  by 
Fr.  Turrianus,  Venice,  1563;  he  also  published  a  Latin  version  of  the  work 
at  Antwerp,  1578.  Both  Ph.  Labbe  (Paris,  1662)  and  J.  D.  Mansi  (Florence, 
1759)  reprinted  the  Turrianus  edition,  each  in  the  first  volume  of  his  col- 
lection of  the  councils.  Similarly,  J.  B.  Cotelier,  in  the  first  volume  of 
his  edition  of  the  Patres  Apostolici  (Paris,  1672),  has  reprinted  the  Tur- 
rianus edition,  but  added  a  new  Latin  version  and  illustrated  the  text  with 
a  copious  commentary  in  which  he  made  known  some  variant  readings 
from  hitherto  unused  manuscripts.  Other  new  readings  were  added  by 
J.  Clericus  in  the  second  of  his  reprints  of  the  work  of  Cotelier,  Amsterdam, 

1  Trail.,  vii.  3. 


352  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

1724.  It  is  from  the  latter  two  works  that  the  text  printed  in  Gallandi, 
Bibliotheca  vet.  Patrum,  Venice,  1767,  iii,  and  Migne,  PG.,  i,  Paris,  1857 
has  been  taken  (Migne  has  not  the  canons  of  the  Apostles).  With  the 
aid  of  the  above-mentioned  variant  readings  a  new  edition  was  undertaken 
by  W.  Ueltzen,  Constitutiones  Apostolicae,  Schwerin  and  Rostock,  1853. 
We  owe  to  Bunsen  a  recension  of  the  Canons  of  the  Apostles,  in  Analecta 
Ante-Nicsena.  Collegit,  recensuit,  illustravit  Chr.  C.  J.  Bunsen,  London, 
1854,  ii.  1 — 32.  In  the  same  work  P.  Bötticher  (de  Lagarde)  edited  the 
eight  books  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  pp.  33 — 224  339 — 448  (cf.  §  46). 
Eight  years  later  de  Lagarde  brought  out  again  the  Apostolic  Constitutions 
(without  the  Canons),  in  what  may  be  called  the  first  critical  edition :  Con- 
stitutiones Apostolorum.  P.  A.  de  Lagarde  edidit,  Leipzig  and  London, 
1862.  Cardinal  Pitra  published  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  in  his  Iuris 
ecclesiastici  Graecorum  Historia  et  Monumenta,  Rome,  1864,  i.  no — 422, 
1  — 44 ;  but  his  text-recension  is  in  no  way  remarkable.  The  Apostolic 
Ganons  (Constit.  Apost.  viii.  47)  were  printed  so  far  back  as  153 1  by 
Gr.  Halo  ander ,  and  afterwards  incorporated  in  most  editions  of  the 
Corpus  iuris  civilis  and  the  Corpus  iuris  canonici,  also  in  the  greater 
collections  of  the  councils.  They  may  be  found  too  in  de  Lagarde,  Re- 
liquiae iuris  eccles.  antiquissimae  graece,  Leipzig,  1856,  pp.  20 — 35, 
and  in  Hefele ,  Konziliengeschichte  (2.  ed.),  Freiburg  i.  Br.,  1873,  i.  793 
to  827.  —  The  first  part  of  the  seventh  book  of  the  Apostolic  Constitu- 
tions (cc.  1 — 32)  was  also  reproduced  in  various  editions  of  the  Didache 
(§  6,  4)  by  Ph.  Bryennios,  Constantinople,  1 883 ;  by  A.  Harnack,  Leipzig, 
1884  1893;  by  Ph.  Schaff,  New  York,  1885  1886  1889;  by  Fr.  X.  Funk, 
Tübingen,  1887,  and  by  J.  R.  Harris,  Baltimore  and  London,  1887.  — 
A  German  version  from  the  Cotelier  edition  of  the  Constitutions  (with  the 
Canons)  was  published  by  F.  Boxler ,  Kempten,  1874  (Bibliothek  der 
Kirchenväter).  —  J.  S.  v.  Drey ,  Neue  Untersuchungen  über  die  Konstitu- 
tionen and  Kanones  der  Apostel,  Tübingen,  1832;  Fr.  X.Funk,  Die  Apo- 
stolischen Konstitutionen,  Rottenburg,  1891;  Id.,  Das  achte  Buch  der  apo- 
stolischen Konstitutionen  und  die  verwandten  Schriften,  Tübingen,  1883, 
also  in  Kirchengeschichtl.  Abhandlungen  und  Untersuchungen  (1899),  ii. 
359 — 37 2-  A.  Baumstark,  Die  nichtgriechischen  Paralleltexte  zum  achten 
Buch  der  apostolischen  Konstitutionen,  in  Oriens  Christianus  (1891),  i.  98 
to  137.  Funk,  Zum  achten  Buch  der  apostolischen  Konstitut,  und  den 
verwandten  Schriften,  in  Theol.  Quartalschrift  (1902),  lxxxiv.  223 — 236; 
Id.,  Ein  Fragment  zu  den  Apostolischen  Konstitutionen,  in  Theol.  Quartal- 
schrift (1903),  lxxxv.  195 — 202.  R.  H.  Cresswell,  Liturgy  of  the  Eighth 
Book  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  commonly  called  the  Clementine 
Liturgy,  London,  1900.  After  his  preliminary  essays  on  the  subject,  Funk 
published  a  critical  edition,  vol.  i :  Didascalia  et  Constitutiones  Apostolorum : 
vol.  ii:  Testimonia  et  Scripturae  propinquae,  Paderborn,  1905,  which  bids 
fair  to  remain  the  standard  one.  The  Greek  text  of  the  Didascalia  is 
not  extant.  Funk  gives  a  new  Latin  translation  of  the  Syriac  version  of 
the  Didascalia  and  adds  the  lectiones  variantes  of  the  Oriental  versions  of 
the  Didascalia,  as  well  as  those  of  the  Greek  text  of  the  Constitution. 

5.  DIDASCALIA  ARABICA  AND  ^ETHIOPICA.  —  There  is  extant,  in 
an  Arabic  and  an  Ethiopic  version,  a  later  recension  of  the  first  six 
books  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  really  an  interpolated  Didas- 
calia; in  these  versions  the  latter  title  is  sometimes  corrupted  into 
«Dascalia».  The  greater  part  of  the  Ethiopic  version  has  been  print- 
ed;   of  the   Arabic   only   fragments   have   seen   the   light,    partly   in 


§    75-      THE    SO-CALLED    APOSTOLIC    CONSTITUTIONS.  353 

Arabic,  partly  in  German.  It  seems  certain  that  the  Ethiopic  text 
comes  from  the  Arabic,  not  immediately,  but  by  means  of  a  Coptic 
version  of  the  latter.  Most  of  the  manuscripts  of  the  Arabic  version 
contain  five  chapters  (35 — 39)  that  are  found  also  in  the  «Testament 
of  Our  Lord»  (see  no.  7),  whence  they  were  certainly  borrowed.  They 
treat  of  the  bishop,  his  election,  ordination,  consecration,  and  his 
duties  of  prayer  and  fasting. 

The  Ethiopic  Didascalia  was  edited  and  translated  into  English  as  far 
as  c.  22  (i.  e.  as  far  as  Const.  Apost.  iv.  13)  by  Th.  Pell  Piatt,  The  Ethiopic 
Didascalia,  London,  1834.  The  Ethiopic  text  is  preceded  (pp.  xiii — xiv) 
by  the  introduction  to  the  Arabic  text  and  the  first  chapter  of  the  same 
(without  translation).  With  the  help  of  Socin,  a  German  version  of  the 
introduction,  the  chapters  immediately  following,  the  table  of  contents,  and 
chapters  35 — 39  of  the  Arabic  text,  were  published  by  Fr.  X.  Punk,  Die 
Apostolischen  Konstitutionen,  Rottenburg,  1891,  pp.  207 — 242.  Cf.  A.  Baum- 
stark, in  Rom.  Quartalschr.  (1900),  xiv.   12  f. 

6.  THE  EIGHTH  BOOK  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CONSTITUTIONS.  THE 
« CONSTITUTIONES  PER  HIPPOLYTUM».  THE  EGYPTIAN  CHURCH- 
ORDINANCE.  —  What  is  known  as  the  « Constitutiones  per  Hippo- 
lytum»  exists  only  in  fragmentary  shape;  with  the  exception  of  a  few 
passages,  it  corresponds  verbally  with  a  considerable  part  of  the 
eighth  book  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions.  Each  of  its  five  frag- 
ments bears  a  special  title:  didaaxaXia  twv  dyicov  äitoöToAcöv  rrsp} 
yapiGfio.Ttov  (Const.  Ap.  viii.  I — 2),  diard^siQ  zwv  aörwu  dyiojv  dno- 
aroXtov  7Ztp\  yziporovitov  did  'IxttoXutoo  (Const.  Ap.  viii.  4 — 5  16 — 18 
30 — 31),  IlaoXoü  tod  äyto'j  dnoazoXou  diard$£iQ  jrspl  xavovcov  ix- 
xArjmaazLxcüv  (Const.  Ap.  viii.  32),  üerpoü  xat  UauXou  zebu  dyicov  drro- 
aroXcov  duird^etQ  (Const.  Ap.  viii.  33 — 34  42 — 45),  nsp)  sdra$iag 
dtdaaxaXia  ndwcov  zcov  dyicov  dTioaröX.aiv  (Const.  Ap.  viii.  46).  Hence,  it 
is  only  the  title  of  the  second  fragment,  «On  ordinations»,  that  contains 
the  words  Sid  ^tttüoXutoü,  thereby  pretending  to  be  the  work  of  Hippo- 
lytus  of  Rome,  for  there  can  be  no  question  of  another  Hippolytus. 
The  whole  work,  however,  is  clearly  nothing  more  than  an  epitome 
of  the  eighth  book  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  and  is  done,  too, 
so  carelessly  that  the  writer  has  preserved  the  four  references  in  the 
eighth  book  to  preceding  books  of  the  Constitutions.  Achelis  and 
Harnack  maintain  that  the  writer  made  use,  not  of  the  eighth  book  of 
the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  but  of  an  older  and  closely  related  work, 
which  they  suppose  to  have  been  also  the  model  and  source  of  the 
Constitutions ;  but  their  thesis  rests  on  no  solid  foundation,  and  Funk 
has  shown  that  it  offers  many  difficulties  and  irreconcilable  contra- 
dictions. «Egyptian  Church-Ordinance»  is  the  name  given  by  Achelis 
(1891)  to  the  second  part  of  an  archaic  Corpus  iuris  canonici,  that 
opens  with  the  Apostolic  Church-Ordinance  (§  42).  The  latter  includes 
thirty  canons,  while  the  Egyptian  Church-Ordinance  contains  more 
(31 — 62).    By  reason  of  its  reception  into  the  afore-mentioned  canonic- 

Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  23 


354  '        SECOND    PERIOD.      FIRST    SECTION. 

al  collection  the  Egyptian  Church-Ordinance  has  reached  us  in 
several  Oriental  versions  or  recensions:  Coptic,  Ethiopic,  and  Arabic. 
The  original  Greek  text  is  apparently  lost.  On  the  other  hand,  frag- 
ments of  a  Latin  version,  more  faithful  and  trustworthy  than  the 
Oriental  versions,  have  lately  been  discovered.  The  original  title 
was  probably:  Canones  sanctorum  apostolorum  per  Hippolytum. 
The  work  treats  of  ordinations  and  ecclesiastical  grades,  proselytes 
and  catechumens,  women,  baptism,  fasting,  the  Agape  and  the 
Blessed  Eucharist,  oblations,  church  services,  urials,  band  times  of 
prayer.  The  first  third  of  these  canons  (31 — 42)  corresponds  sub- 
stantially with  cc.  4 — 32  of  the  eighth  book  of  the  Apostolic  Con- 
stitutions ;  and  some  even  of  the  other  canons  are  found  in  the  same 
eighth  book.  The  canons  differ,  however,  in  some  details  from  the 
Apostolic  Constitutions,  but  on  such  occasions  they  are  found  to 
agree  with  the  Constitutione s  per  Hippolytum.  Throughout  the  work 
there  is  evident  a  tendency  to  condensation  that  betrays  the  intention 
of  the  writer  to  abbreviate,  for  which  reason  and  others  as  well  Funk 
sees  in  the  Constitutiones  per  Hippolytum  the  basis  of  the  Egyptian 
Church-Ordinance:  if  the  former  are  to  be  dated  about  425,  the  latter 
must  be  referred  to  about  450  Achelis  and  Harnack  reverse  this 
order  of  dependency;  according  to  them  the  shorter  text  (Egyptian 
Church-Ordinance)  is  the  older  one  and  was  compiled  about  the  year 
300,  while  the  Constitutiones  per  Hippolytum  belong,  approximately, 
to  the  year  390. 

The  «Constitutiones  per  Hippolytum»  are  printed  in  the  editions  of 
Hippolvtus  by  J.  A.  Fabricius,  Hamburg,  1716— 1718;  A.  Gallandi,  Venice, 
1766  (Bibl.  vet.  Patr.  ii);  P.  de  Lagarde,  Leipzig  and  London,  1858.  They 
are  also  found  in  de  Lagarde ,  Reliquiae  iuris  eccl.  antiquissimae  graece, 
Leipzig,  1856,  pp.  1 — 18,  and  in  Pitra ,  Iuris  eccles.  Graecorum  historia 
et  monumenta,  Rome,  1864,  i.  45 — 75.  —  The  first  three  canons  of  the 
Ethiopic  recension  of  the  Egyptian  Church-Ordinance  were  published  by 
J.  Ludolfus,  Ad  suam  historiam  Aethiopicam  antehac  editam  commentarius, 
Frankfort,    1691,    pp.  323 — 328;  he  also  added  a  Latin  version  of  them. 

A  German  version  of  the  Ethiopic  text  (according  to  Ludolf)  was 
made  by  J.  Bachmann,  and  is  found  in  H.  Achelis ,  Die  ältesten  Quellen 
des  orientalischen  Kirchenrechts,  Leipzig,  1891 ,  i.  39  ff.  The  North- 
Egyptian  (Memphitic,  Bohiric)  recension  of  the  Egyptian  Church-Ordinance 
was  published  (with  an  English  translation)  by  H.  Tattam,  The  Apostolical 
Constitutions,  London,  1848,  pp.  31 — 92.  Bötticher  (de  Lagarde)  under- 
took to  re-translate  into  Greek  the  Coptic  text  of  Tattam,  in  Bunsen, 
Analecta  Ante-Nicaena,  London,  1854,  ii.  461 — 477.  The  South-Egyptian 
(Theban,  Sahidic)  text,  whence  the  North-Egyptian  text  is  derived,  was 
edited  by  de  Lagarde,  Aegyptiaca,  Göttingen,  1883,  pp.  248 — 266  (without 
a  translation),  and  by  U.  Bouria7it ,  in  Recueil  de  travaux  relatifs  ä  la 
philol.  et  ä  l'archeol.  egypt.  et  assyr. ,  Paris,  1883 — 1884,  v.  206 — 216 
(without  a  translation).  A  German  version  of  the  South-Egyptian  recen- 
sion was  made,  from  the  edition  of  de  Lagarde,  by  G.  Steindorff,  and  is 
found  in  Achelis,  1.  c. ,  39fr.  In  the  Theol.  Quartalschrift  (1893),  lxxv. 
664—666,  Funk  published    a  brief  fragment    of  the  original  Greek  of  the 


§    75-      THE    SO-CALLED    APOSTOLIC    CONSTITUTIONS.  355 

Egyptian  Church-Ordinance  (canon  47  in  Coptic).  The  fragments  of  a 
Latin  version  are  in  E.  Hauler,  Didascaliae  apostolorum  fragmenta  Vero- 
nensia  Latina,  Leipzig,  1900,  i.  101 — 121.  —  H  A che lis ,  Die  ältesten 
Quellen  des  orientalischen  Kirchenrechtes,  i:  Die  «Canones  Hippolyti», 
Leipzig,  1891,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  new  series,  vi.  4.  Id. ,  in 
Zeitschr.  f.  Kirchengesch.  (1894 — 1895),  xv.  1 — 43.  Cf.  Harnack,  in  Theol. 
Studien  u.  Kritiken  (1893),  lxvi.  403 — 420.  On  the  other  side  see  Funk, 
Die  Apostolischen  Konstitutionen,  Rottenburg,  1891,  pp.  142 — 150  253  to 
280.  Id.,  Das  achte  Buch  der  Apostolischen  Konstitutionen  und  die  ver- 
wandten Schriften,  Tübingen,  1893  (against  Harnack),  Id.,  in  Hist.  Jahr- 
buch (1895),  xvi.  1 — 36  473 — 509  (against  Achelis).  Id.,  Das  Testament 
unseres  Herrn  und  die  verwandten  Schriften,  Mainz,  1901.  The  order  of 
the  dependency  established  by  Achelis  is  defended  by  H  de  Jongh,  Le 
Testament  de  Notre  Seigneur  et  les  ecrits  apparentes,  in  Revue  d'hist. 
eccles.  (1902),  iii.  615—  643.  He  writes,  however,  independently  concern- 
ing the  actual  date  and  origin  of  the  various  texts  in  question.  G.  Horner, 
The  Statutes  of  the  Apostles  or  Canones  Ecclesiastici ;  cf.  Funk,  Theol. 
Quartal schrift  (1906),  pp.  1 — 27.  F.  Nau,  «Constitutions  Apostoliques»,  in 
the  Dictionnaire  de  Theologie  Catholique,  Paris,  1907  (1520 — 1536).  Id., 
«Canons  Apostoliques»,  ib.  (1605 — 1626). 

7.  THE  EIGHTH  BOOK  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CONSTITUTIONS  (CON- 
TINUED). THE  TESTAMENT  OF  OUR  LORD.  THE  CANONS  OF  HIPPO- 
LYTUS.  —  Through  the  medium  of  the  Egyptian  Church-Ordinance 
two  other  works  are  affiliated  to  the  eighth  book  of  the  Apostolic 
Constitutions.  The  Testament  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  composed 
'originally  in  Greek,  has  reached  us  in  Syriac,  Ethiopic,  and  Arabic 
versions;  short  Latin  fragments  of  the  introduction  are  also  extant. 
The  complete  Syriac  text  was  edited  in  1899  by  the  Syrian  patriarch 
Rahmani;  de  Lagarde  had  already  made  known  (1856)  some  scattered 
fragments  of  the  work.  The  introduction  contains  prophecies  of  our 
Lord  concerning  the  last  days,  and  probably  was  at  first  an  inde- 
pendent work.  It  is  followed  by  a  very  lengthy  ecclesiastical  ordi- 
nance, placed  also  in  the  mouth  of  our  Lord,  and  by  an  exposition 
of  the  liturgy.  There  is  a  close  and  substantial  parallelism  between 
the  verbose  text  of  this  Church-Ordinance  or  «Testament»  and  the 
more  compact  text  of  the  Egyptian  Church-Ordinance.  From  this 
Rahmani  concluded  that  the  «Testament»  was  older  than  the  Egyptian 
text,  the  latter  being  an  excerpt  from  the  former;  the  «Testament»  could 
be  dated  back  to  the  second  century,  while  the  Egyptian  Church- 
Ordinance  would  belong  to  the  third  century.  These  conclusions 
have  been  universally  rejected.  Funk  has  shown,  by  an  exhaustive 
research,  that  the  «Testament»  is  an  amplification,  and  that  the 
Egyptian  Church-Ordinance  is  no  compendium.  The  latter  cannot 
have  been  compiled  in  the  third  century,  and  the  former  exhibits 
abundant  evidence,  constitutional,  liturgical  and  dogmatic,  of  a  later 
ecclesiastical  period.  There  is  mention  of  this  «Testament»  in  a  Greek 
theosophy  of  the  end  of  the  fifth  century  (diattyxyQ  nvbg  too  xupioitj; 
so  it  may  have  been  written  about  475  in  some  circle  of  Syrian  Mono- 

23* 


356  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

physites.  The  Canones  Hippolyti  have  reached  us  in  an  Arabic  and 
an  Ethiopic  version.  The  former  was  published  in  1870  by  von 
Haneberg  and  in  1890  by  Riedel.  The  contents  of  this  work  are 
so  similar  to  those  of  the  Egyptian  Church-Ordinance  that  the  one 
is  certainly  a  recension  of  the  other.  According  to  Achelis  the 
priority  belongs  to  the  Canons  of  Hippolytus.  He  recognizes  in  the 
Arabic  version  numerous  later  additions  and  transformations,  but 
maintains  that  the  original  Greek  text  was  the  work  of  Hippolytus 
of  Rome,  about  218 — 221.  Funk  holds  the  priority  of  the  Egyptian 
Church-Ordinance:  the  Canons  of  Hippolytus  were  constructed  from 
this  document,  and  they  did  not  appear  before  the  end  of  the  fifth 
century,  in  the  East  at  least:  the  arguments  of  Funk  seem  quite 
irresistible.  More  or  less  conclusive  arguments  against  the  authorship 
of  Hippolytus  are  found  in  all  the  passages  that  Achelis  inclines  to 
consider  as  later  additions;  they  form  about  one  third  of  the  entire 
work.  As  the  latter  stands  in  the  manuscripts,  it  is  clearly  of  Oriental 
origin  and  cannot  have  been  compiled  before  the  end  of  the  fifth 
century.  The  Canones  Hippolyti  cannot  be  the  source  and  foundation 
of  the  Egyptian  Church-Ordinance,  because  in  the  former  work  there 
is  wanting  in  the  suitable  place  (can.  2)  a  reference  to  earlier  matter 
that  the  compiler  of  the  Egyptian  Church-Ordinance  makes  in  his 
thirty-first  canon.  Indeed,  the  Canones  Hippolyti  assert  quite  expressly 
that  they  are  a  recension  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions :  hi  sunt  — 
the  text  begins  thus  —  canones  ecclesiae  et  praecepta  quae  scripsit 
Hippolytus,  princeps  episcoporum  Romanorum,  secundum  mandata 
apostolorum. 

The  Syriac  version  of  the  «Testament»  was  published,  with  a  Latin 
translation,  by  Ignatius  Ephraem  II.  Rahmani,  patriarch  of  Antioch,  Mainz, 
1899;  fragments  of  it  had  been  previously  edited  by  de  Lagarde,  Reliquiae 
iuris  eccles.  antiquissimae,  Leipzig,  1856,  pp.  2 — 19  (Syriac),  pp.  80 — 89 
(Greek  text,  i.  e.  a  re-translation  from  Syriac  into  Greek).  Two  short 
fragments  of  a  Latin  version  of  the  introduction  to  the  «Testament»  were 
published  by  M.  Rh.  James,  Apocrypha  anecdota,  Cambridge,  1893,  in 
Texts  and  Studies,  ii  3,  151 — 154.  For  details  concerning  the  manuscript 
tradition  of  the  work  cf.  Baumstark ,  in  Rom.  Quartalschr.  (1900),  xiv. 
1 — 45;  the  Arabic  texts  are  also  treated  ib.,  pp.  291—300.  —  See  v.  Funk, 
Das  Testament  unseres  Herrn  und  die  verwandten  Schriften,  Mainz,  1901, 
in  Forschungen  zur  christlichen  Literatur-  und  Dogmengeschichte,  ii.  1 — 2 ; 
cf.  Harnack,  in  Sitzungsberichte  der  k.  preuss.  Akademie  der  Wissenschaft, 
Berlin,  1899,  pp.  878 — 891 ;  G.  Morin,  in  Revue  Bened.  (1900),  xvii.  10 — 28; 
P.  Batiffol,  in  Revue  Bibl.  (1900),  ix.  253 — 260.  For  other  studies  see 
Funk,  1.  c.  Text-Studies  on  the  work  were  published  by  J.  P.  Arendzen, 
A  new  syriac  Text  of  the  apocalyptic  part  of  the  «Testamentum»  of  the 
Lord,  in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1901),  ii.  401—416;  F.  Nau ,  Frag- 
ment inedit  d'une  traduction  jusqu'ici  inconnue  du  Testamentum  Domini 
nostri  Iesu  Christi,  Paris,  1901.  A  passage  of  this  version  suggests  that 
the  apocalyptic  fragment  was  written  about  351.  L.  Guerrier,  Le  Testa- 
ment de  N.  S.  Jesus  Christ.  Essai  sur  la  partie  apocalypsique  (These), 
Lyon,   1903.     U.  Benigni,  LApocalisse   del  Testamentum  Domini,    in  Bes- 


§    75-      THE    SO-CALLED    APOSTOLIC    CONSTITUTIONS.  357 

sarione  (1900 — 1901),  iv,  vol.  vii.  33 — 41-  cf.  Funk,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr. 
(1902),  lxxxiv.  159 — 160  223 — 236,  and  H.  de  Jongh ,  in  Revue  d'hist. 
eccles.  (1902),  iii.  615 — 643.  J.  Cooper  and  A.  J.  Maclean,  The  Testa- 
ment of  Our  Lord  translated  into  English  from  Syriac.  With  Introduction 
and  Notes,  Edinburg,  1902.  —  The  Canones  Hippolyti  were  edited  in 
Arabic  and  Latin  by  D.  B.  v.  Haneberg,  Munich,  1870;  his  version  was 
revised  from  the  Arabic  by  H.  Vielhaber  and  L.  Stern,  and  reprinted  in 
Achelis,  Die  ältesten  Quellen  des  orientalischen  Kirchenrechtes  (1891),  i. 
38  ff.  The  Latin  text  of  Haneberg  is  in  L.  Duchesne,  Origines  du  culte 
chretien,  2.  ed.,  Paris,  1898,  pp.  505 — 521.  F.  C.  Burkitt,  On  the  Bap- 
tismal Rite  in  the  Canons  of  Hippolytus,  in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies 
(1900),  i.  279. 

Other  Arabic  manuscripts  were  used  for  the  German  translation  of  the 
Canones  by  W.  Riedel,  Die  Kirchenrechtsquellen  des  Patriarchats  Alexan- 
drien,  Leipzig,  1900,  pp.  193 — 230;  his  work  is,  therefore,  in  some  sense 
equivalent  to  a  new  edition  of  the  Arabic  text.  The  most  important  works 
on  the  Canones  Hippolyti  are  mentioned  immediately  above  no.  6.  The 
following  offer  a  special  value:  Funk,  Das  Testament  unseres  Herrn, 
pp.  213 — 291;  de  Jongh,  1.  c. ;  Funk,  Das  Osterfasten  und  die  Canones 
Hippolyti,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1901),  lxxxiii.  639 — 640;  A.  Baumstark, 
Kanones  des  Hippolytos  oder  Kanones  des  Julius,  in  Oriens  Christianus 
(1952),  ii.  191 — 196;  J.  P.  Arendzen,  The  XXXIId  Canon  of  Hippolytus, 
in  Journal  of  Theolog.  Studies  (1902 — 1903),  iv.  282 — 285;  W.  Riedel, 
Bemerkungen  zu  den  Canones  des  Hippolytus,  in  Theol.  Studien  u.  Krit. 
(1903),  lxxvi.  338—342. 

8.  RECENSIONS  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CANONS.  —  Towards  the  year 
500,  Dionysius  Exiguus  translated  into  Latin  the  first  fifty  of  the 
eighty-five  Apostolic  Canons  with  which  the  Apostolic  Constitutions 
end  (viii.  47);  they  were  placed  by  him  at  the  beginning  of  his 
collection  of  ancient  canons.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that 
Dionysius  took  them  immediately  from  the  Apostolic  Constitutions 
or  that  he  was  acquainted  with  all  eighty-five  canons.  Gradually 
these  fifty  canons  translated  by  Dionysius  acquired  juridical  authority 
in  the  Latin  Church;  Pseudo-Isidore  made  a  place  for  them  in  his 
collection,  and  Gratian  certainly  incorporated  in  his  Decretum  some 
extracts  from  them.  —  At  the  end  of  the  above-mentioned  Corpus 
iuris  canonici  of  different  Egyptian  Churches  (see  no.  6)  there  is  also 
found  a  recension  of  the  Apostolic  Canons.  The  various  recensions 
of  this  canonical  collection  differ  both  as  to  the  number  and  the  form 
of  the  Canons;  frequently  several  canons  of  the  Greek  text  are 
welded  into  one  canon.  Also  two  Syriac  translations  of  the  Apostolic 
Canons,    quite  identical  with  the  Greek   text,    have  been   published. 

For  Dionysius  Exiguus  and  his  collections  of  canons  cf.  §  114,  3.  His 
version  of  the  fifty  Apostolic  Canons  is  usually  printed  with  the  Greek 
text  of  the  same  (see  no.  4)  also  in  Hefele,  1.  c,  pp.  800 — 816.  Diony- 
sius made  another  version  of  the  Apostolic  Canons,  that  remained  long 
unedited,  until  it  was  published,  together  with  the  Vulgata  and  another 
recension  of  the  same,  by  C.  H.  Turner,  Ecclesiae  Occidentalis  monu- 
menta  iuris  antiquissima,  Oxford,  1899,  i.  1—32.  —  The  North-Egyptian 
text  of  the  Apostolic  Canons,  85  in  number  as  in  the  Greek,  is  found  in 


358  SECOND    PERIOD.      FIRST   SECTION. 

Tattam,  1.  c.  (see  no.  6),  with  an  English  version,  pp.  173 — 214;  the  South- 
Egyptian  text  (71  canons)  together  with  the  North-Egyptian  is  in  de  La- 
garde ,  Aegyptiaca,  pp.  209 — 238,  and  (without  the  North-Egyptian)  in 
Bouriant,  I.e.,  Paris,  1885,  vi.  109 — 115  (both  untranslated).  The  Ethiopic 
text  (57  canons),  with  a  Latin  version,  may  be  seen  in  W.  Fell,  Canones 
Apostolorum  aethiopice  (Diss,  inaug.),  Leipzig,  187 1.  For  a  Syriac  text 
(83  canons)  with  a  Latin  version  cf.  A.  Mai,  Script,  vet.  nova  coll.  (1838), 
x  1,  175 — 184,  8 — 17.  Another  Syriac  text  (82  canons,  untranslated)  is  in 
de  Lagarde,  Reliquiae  iuris  eccles.  antiquissimae  syriace  (1856),  pp.  44 — 60. 

§  76.    Synesius  of  Cyrene. 

I.  HIS  LIFE.  —  Synesius  was  born  between  370  and  375,  at 
Cyrene  in  Libyan  Pentapolis,  the  so-called  Cyrenaica,  of  an  ancient 
and  noble  family  that  still  clung  to  its  ancestral  paganism.  With 
his  brother  Euoptius  he  betook  himself  to  Alexandria,  the  seat  of 
all  higher  studies  in  Egypt.  There  he  became  acquainted  with  the 
gifted  Hypatia,  the  intellectual  daughter  of  the  mathematician  Theon, 
and  by  her  was  initiated  into  the  mysteries  of  the  Neo-Platonist 
(Plotinist)  philosophy.  On  his  return  to  his  native  town,  though  still 
quite  a  young  man,  the  oppressed  cities  of  the  Pentapolis  sent  him 
(397)  to  the  imperial  court  as  their  representative,  in  the  hope  that 
he  might  obtain  a  remittal  of  the  excessive  taxes  levied  on  them. 
He  returned  successful  in  400,  and  thenceforth  lived  chiefly  for  his 
beloved  study  of  philosophy.  In  409  the  clergy  and  people  of 
Ptolemais  requested  him  to  become  their  bishop  and  metropolitan 
of  the  Pentapolis,  though  he  does  not  seem  to  have  been  at  the  time 
a  Christian.  The  entire  region,  threatened  by  the  marauding  hordes  of 
barbarians  (Macheti),  placed  its  sole  hope  in  this  youthful  descendant 
of  an  estimable  patrician  family,  who  had  already  given  evidence  of 
good  abilities.  He  was  consecrated  by  Theophilus,  patriarch  of  Alex- 
andria, but  on  two  conditions,  viz.  that  he  should  not  be  compelled 
to  dismiss  his  wife,  and  should  not  be  forced  to  abandon  his  philo- 
sophical opinions,  some  of  which  were  not  consistent  with  ecclesia- 
stical teaching,  e.  g.  the  pre-existence  of  the  soul,  the  eternity  of 
creation,  the  allegorical  concept  of  resurrection  (cf.  his  letter  to 
Euoptius,  n.  105).  His  mental  attitude  and  dispositions  do  not  seem 
to  have  been  at  any  time  fully  Christian.  The  points  of  contact 
between  Platonism  and  Christianity  obscured  in  his  mind  the  antithesis 
of  their  fundamental  principles.  He  was  a  Christian  at  heart,  but  in 
the  things  of  the  mind  remained  a  follower  of  Plato.  Nevertheless, 
as  a  bishop  he  stood  out  manfully  and  successfully,  amid  difficult 
circumstances,  for  justice  and  peace.  His  career  was  not  destined 
to  be  a  long  one;  his  letters  exhibit  no  date  later  than  413.  With 
his  eloquent  discourse  the  history  of  the  Libyan  Pentapolis  comes  to 
an  end;  even  now  it  is  his  writings  that  act  as  our  guide  in  the 
labyrinth  of  grandiose  monuments  that  continue  to  arouse  the  ad- 
miration of  the  traveller  in  the  Pentapolis. 


§    76.      SYNESIUS    OF    CYRENE.  359 

2.  WRITINGS  OF  SYNESIUS.  —  There  are  three  distinct  periods, 
as  Kraus  has  well  shown,  in  the  mental  development  and  the  literary 
labors  of  this  distinguished  man.  To  the  first  period  belong  those 
of  his  writings1  that  are  especially  heathen  and  Platonic  and  exhibit 
nothing  that  is  pronouncedly  Christian.  They  are  the  discourse  on 
Royalty  (rzep\  ßaadeiaq),  a  manly  speech  made  in  399  at  Constantino- 
ple in  presence  of  the  emperor  Arcadius;  the  little  work  brzep 
too  dcopou  äüTpolaßioö,  which  he  dedicated  to  a  certain  Paeonius  at 
Constantinople  with  the  gift  of  a  fine  astrolabe;  the  Egyptian  dis- 
courses on  Providence  (Äiyurzrioi  Xoyot  ^  rrepl  rtpovoiaq),  begun  at 
Constantinople  but  finished  in  Egypt,  in  which  under  the  native  myth 
of  Osiris  and  Typhös  he  described  the  conditions  and  events  at  the 
imperial  capital;  the  praise  of  Baldness  ((paMxpaq  iyxcoptouj,  a  satire 
on  those  sophists  who  speak  for  no  higher  purpose  than  the  pleasure 
of  speech;  Dio  or  a  life  ordered  according  to  him  fjccou  y  rzep\  rrjq 
xaz  aurbv  diaycopjgj,  a  defence  of  the  scientific  occupations  of  the 
author,  as  justified  by  the  life  of  the  philosopher  and  rhetorician 
Dio  Chrysostomus ;  the  tractate  on  the  causes  and  meaning  of  dreams 
frcep}  kvoTtviwv))  some  hymns  and  a  collection  of  letters.  The  latter 
number  156  (in  Migne),  and  have  always  aroused  a  lively  interest, 
partly  because  of  the  perfection  of  their  style  and  partly  because  they 
are  a  rich  source  of  information  concerning  the  history  and  the  geo- 
graphy of  the  Pentapolis.  They  seem  to  have  been  written  between 
399  and  413.  The  ten  hymns,  preserved  to  us,  are  all  in  the  Doric 
dialect  and  composed  according  to  the  laws  of  ancient  prosody. 
The  first  four,  lyrical  outpourings  of  a  profoundly  religious  soul, 
belong  probably  to  the  first  period  of  his  life.  Some  other  hymns 
point  to  a  period  of  transition,  perhaps  from  404  to  409;  in  these 
writings  the  author  seems  to  waver  between  Christianity  and  paganism. 
No  important  work,  however,  belongs  to  this  period.  From  his 
consecration  to  the  see  of  Ptolemais  dates  a  third  period  of  his  life 
in  which  the  Christian  element  is  uppermost,  though  the  pagan  thought 
and  sentiment  are  not  quite  overcome.  Many  of  his  letters  belong 
to  this  period,  also  two  (fragmentary)  homilies,  and  two  orations 
(xaraordaeiQ) .  The  first  of  these  orations  is  a  splendid  example  of 
eloquence,  descriptive  of  the  renewed  invasion  of  the  Pentapolis  (411) 
by  the  barbarians;  the  second  is  a  panegyric  of  Anysius,  the  prefect 
(dux)  of  Pentapolis.  To  this  period  also  must  be  referred  the  com- 
position of  the  seventh  or  eighth  hymn  which  is  specifically  Christian 
in  character. 

3.  literature  on  synesius.  —  A  complete  edition  of  his  writings, 
with  Latin  translation  and  notes,  was  made  by  Dionysius  Petavius,  Paris, 
16 12  1631  1633  and  1640  (the  best).  A  new  edition  of  the  hymns  was 
brought  out  by  J.  Fr.  Boissonade,  Paris,  1825  (Poetarum  graecorum  sylloge  xv : 

1  Migne,  PC,  lxvi. 


36O  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

Lyrici  graeci,  pp.  97 — 160).  J.  G.  Krabinger  collated  many  codices  for 
a  new  edition  of  Synesius;  he  published  editions  of  several  writings:  the 
discourse  on  Royalty,  Munich,  1825;  the  praise  of  Baldness,  Stuttgart, 
1834;  the  Egyptian  discourses,  Sulzbach,  1835,  a^  three  with  German  ver- 
sions. A  complete  edition  was  begun  by  Krabinger ,  but  only  the  first 
volume  appeared,  Landshut,  1850;  it  contains  the  Greek  text  with  a  simple 
critical  apparatus  of  the  longer  works  (except  the  letters  and  hymns).  The 
Petavius  edition  (1633)  is  reprinted  in  Migne,  PG.,  lxvi,  Paris,  1859  1864, 
though  the  text  of  the  praise  of  Baldness  is  taken  from  the  Krabinger 
edition.  For  a  new  edition  of  the  letters  of  Synesius  cf.  R.  Hercher, 
Epistolographi  graeci,  Paris,  1873,  pp.  638 — 739.  New  editions  of  the  ten 
hymns  were  brought  out  by  W.  Christ  and  M.  Paranikas,  Leipzig,  187 1  (Antho- 
logia  graeca  carminum  christianorum,  Leipzig,  187 1,  pp.  3 — 23;  cf.  Proleg. 
pp.  ix — xii),  and  J.  Flach,  Tübingen,  1875.  E.  Gaiser,  Des  Synesius  von 
Cyrene  ägyptische  Erzählungen  oder  über  die  Vorsehung,  Wolfenbüttel, 
1886  (Inaug.-Diss.).  O.  Seek,  Studien  zu  Synesios,  I.  Der  historische  Gehalt 
des  Osirismythos.  IL  Die  Briefsammlung:  Philologus  (1893),  lii.  442 — 483. 
W.  Fritz,  Die  Briefe  des  Bischofs  Synesius  von  Kyrene,  Leipzig,  1898. 
Fr.  X.  Kraus,  Studien  über  Synesios  von  Cyrene,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr. 
(1865),  xlvii.  381 — 448  537 — 600;  (1866),  xlviii.  85  — 129.  R.  Volkmann, 
Synesius  von  Cyrene,  Berlin,  1869.  E.  Gaiser,  Synesius  von  Cyrene,  in 
Theol.  Studien  aus  Württemberg  (1886),  vii.  51 — 70.  C.  M.  Dreves,  Der 
Sänger  der  Kyrenaika,  in  Stimmen  aus  Maria-Laach  (1897),  lii.  545- — 562. 
J.  R.  Asmus,  Synesius  und  Dio  Chrysostomus,  in  Byzantin.  Zeitschr.  (1900), 
ix.  85  — 151;  W.  S.  Crawford,  Synesius  the  Hellen,  London,  1901  ;  A.  j. 
Kleffner,  Synesius  von  Cyrene,  der  Philosoph  und  Dichter,  und  sein  an- 
geblicher Vorbehalt  bei  seiner  Wahl  und  Weihe  zum  Bischof  von  Ptole- 
mais,  Paderborn,  1901.  H.  Koch,  Synesius  von  Cyrene  bei  seiner  Wahl 
und  Weihe  zum  Bischof,  in  Hist.  Jahrbuch  (1902),  xxiii.  751 — 774.  C.  Valley, 
Etude  sur  les  hymnes  de  Synesius  de  Cyrene,  Paris,  1905. 

§  77.    St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria. 

i.  HIS  LIFE  BEFORE  428.  —  We  know  but  little  concerning 
St.  Cyril  before  his  elevation  to  the  patriarchal  see  of  Alexandria, 
in  412.  He  was  probably  born  in  that  city  and  was  a  nephew  of 
its  patriarch  Theophilus.  His  extensive  theological  knowledge  was 
certainly  acquired  in  its  Christian  schools.  From  the  four  very  frank 
letters  of  St.  Isidore  Pelusiota  to  the  patriarch  Cyril1  we  learn  that 
Cyril  lived  for  a  time  in  the  desert  with  the  monks  and  received 
from  them  a  training  in  Christian  ascetism.  He  went  with  his  uncle 
to  Constantinople  in  403,  and  took  part  in  the  «Synod  of  the  Oak» 
near  Chalcedon  at  which  Chrysostom  was  deposed  (§  74,  4).  Theo- 
philus died  October  15.,  412,  and  two  days  afterwards  Cyril  was 
elected  patriarch,  but  not  without  opposition.  We  know  but  little  of 
the  beginnings  of  his  administration,  and  that  little  is  colored  by  the 
partisan  temper  of  the  narrative  of  Socrates2.  —  The  youthful  patri- 
arch's treatment  of  the  Novatians  and  the  Jews  of  Alexandria  may  have 
been  characterized  by  a  certain  precipitation  and  a  want  of  feeling3. 

1  S.  Isid.  Pel.,  Ep.  i.  310  323  324  370.  2  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.  7   n    13  ff. 

3  Cf.  the  relative  Letters  of  Isidore. 


§    77-      ST-    CYRIL    OF    ALEXANDRIA.  36 1 

It  is  impossible  to  obtain  a  clear  knowledge  of  the  dissensions 
between  Cyril  and  the  imperial  city-prefect  Orestes  at  Alexandria; 
Socrates  insinuates  *,  without  proof,  that  the  patriarch  was  responsible 
for  the  murder  by  the  Christians  (March,  415)  of  the  female  philo- 
sopher Hypatia,  a  close  friend  of  the  prefect.  It  was  only  after  a 
long  resistance  that  Cyril  caused  (about  417)  the  name  of  St.  Chryso- 
stom  to  be  replaced  in  the  diptychs  of  the  Alexandrian  church.  After 
429  the  sources  of  our  information  multiply;  thenceforth  Cyril  is  a 
prominent  factor  in  the  great  problems  of  ecclesiastical  and  dogmatical 
history.  Amid  perils  and  trials  his  spirit  and  character  shine  as  in  a 
noonday  splendor  and  exhibit  in  him  an  instrument  specially  chosen 
by  God. 

2.  THE  CONFLICT  WITH  NESTÖRIANISM.  —  In  428  Nestorius  be- 
came bishop  of  Constantinople,  and  at  once  began  to  disseminate  by 
means  of  his  sermons  the  Christological  teaching  of  Diodorus  of  Tarsus 
(§  72,  3)  and  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  (§  73,  3).  He  denied  the  unity 
of  person  in  Christ,  asserted  that  the  Blessed  Virgin  could  not  be 
called  Mother  of  God  (ftsoruxog)  and  that  to  speak  of  a  God  in 
swaddling  clothes  and  crucified  was  only  a  heathen  fable.  As  early 
as  the  spring  of  429  Cyril  gave  a  general  reply  to  these  false  theses 
and  defended  the  orthodox  teaching  in  his  Festal  Letter  of  Easter 
of  that  year  and  in  an  Encyclical  Letter  to  the  monks  of  Egypt. 
It  was  not  the  divine  nature,  but  the  Incarnate  Word  that  was  born 
of  Mary;  the  human  nature  in  Christ  does  not  belong  to  any  human 
person  but  to  the  Divine  Word.  After  fruitless  efforts  to  arrive  at  an 
understanding,  both  Cyril  and  Nestorius  appealed  to  pope  Celestine, 
with  the  result  that  at  a  Roman  synod,  held  in  430,  Nestorius  was 
declared  a  heretic  and  threatened  with  deposition  unless  within  ten 
days  from  the  receipt  of  the  synodal  decision  he  retracted  his  errors. 
Cyril  was  charged  with  the  duty  of  communicating  this  decision  to 
Nestorius  and,  in  the  name  of  the  pope,  of  excommunicating  him, 
in  case  he  proved  rebellious;  he  added  to  the  pope's  letter  a  pro- 
fession of  faith  approved  by  an  Alexandrine  synod  of  430,  in  which 
he  developed  more  fully  the  doctrine  that  Nestorius  was  to  accept, 
and  also  twelve  «anathematisms»  that  described  the  errors  which 
Nestorius  was  to  reject.  Nestorius  replied  with  twelve  counter-ana- 
thematisms,  and  by  that  the  rupture  was  completed.  Some  days 
before  the  reception  of  Cyril's  anathematisms  at  Constantinople,  the 
emperor  Theodosius  had  yielded  to  the  instances  of  Nestorius  and 
convoked  (Nov.  19.,  430)  a  council  at  Ephesus  for  the  Pentecost  of 
431.  The  pope  delegated  Cyril  as  his  representative.  In  its  first 
session  (June  22.,  431),  the  council  deposed  Nestorius  and  confirmed 
both  the  profession  of  faith  and  the  twelve  anathematisms   of  Cyril. 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.    15. 


362  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

Throughout  its  sessions  the  latter  was  the  soul  of  the  council,  and 
fulfilled  his  mission,  amid  many  difficulties,  with  prudence,  courage 
and  perseverance.  The  bishops  of  the  Antiochene  province,  under 
the  leadership  of  John  of  Antioch,  had  separated  from  Cyril  and 
the  other  bishops,  and  taken  part  more  or  less  openly  with  Nestorius. 
It  was  not  until  433  that  a  reconciliation  was  effected:  in  that  year 
Cyril  signed  a  profession  of  faith  (very  probably  drawn  up  by  Theo- 
doret  of  Cyrus,  the  most  learned  of  the  Antiochenes)  that  was  cap- 
able of  an  orthodox  interpretation  and  acknowledged  in  particular 
the  divine  maternity  of  the  Blessed  Virgin.  Although  in  this  manner 
a  schism  was  formally  avoided,  Cyril  was  obliged  to  devote  the 
remainder  of  his  days  to  its  final  extermination.  His  death  took  place 
June  27.,  444.  If  we  except  Athanasius,  none  of  the  other  Greek 
Fathers  exercised  so  far-reaching  an  influence  on  ecclesiastical  doc- 
trine as  Cyril ;  and  if  we  except  Augustine,  there  is  none  among  all 
the  other  Fathers  whose  works  have  been  adopted  so  extensively  by 
ecumenical  councils  as  a  standard  expression  of  Christian  faith. 

3.  HIS  APOLOGY  AGAINST  JULIAN.  —  We  may  place  first  among 
his  writings  the  work  «For  the  holy  religion  of  the  Christians  against 
the  books  of  the  impious  Julian»  (fakp  trj$  zwv  -Xpioziavcov  edayoug 
ftpyaxeiag  Trpog  za  zou  iu  äfteotg  VouXiavouJ1,  composed  in  433  and 
dedicated  to  Theodosius  II.  The  three  books  of  Julian  «Against  the 
Galilseans»  (of  the  years  362 — 363)  must  have  been  still  very  popular 
in  anti-Christian  circles.  It  is  probable  that  the  work  of  Cyril  originally 
included  thirty  books ;  only  the  first  ten  have  reached  us  entire,  while 
of  books  xi — xx  only  Greek  and  Syriac  fragments  have  been  preserved. 
The  first  ten  books  are  a  reply  to  the  first  book  of  Julian  and  deal 
with  the  relations  of  Judaism  to  heathenism,  and  of  Christianity  to  both 
Judaism  and  heathenism.  Julian  asserted  that  Christianity  was  only 
a  debased  Judaism  with  an  admixture  of  heathenism.  Cyril  follows 
his  adversary  step  by  step,  and  always  places  before  the  reader  the 
text  of  Julian's  own  arguments ;  Cyril's  work  is,  therefore,  the  prin- 
cipal source  of  our  knowledge  concerning  the  (lost)  anti-Christian 
work  of  the  unfortunate  emperor.  In  this  work,  as  elsewhere,  Cyril 
lays  more  stress  on  precision  of  statement  and  closeness  of  argument 
than  on  fluency  and  elegancy  of  diction. 

4.  DOGMATICO-POLEMICAL  WRITINGS.  —  The  polemical  note  domi- 
nates in  all  his  dogmatic  writings.  The  earliest  of  them  are  his  two 
great  works  on  the  Trinity:  ij  ßißXoq  zebu  ftrjaaopcov  nepl  ztjq  äyiaq 
xat  bpoooaioo  zpiddoq2,  in  35  theses  (Xöfot,  assertiones),  and  rrspc 
äyiaq  ze  xat  opooualoD  zpiddoq^  in  the  form  of  seven  dialogues  (Xoyoi, 
dialogi)  of  the  author  with  his  friend  Hermias.  Both  works  were 
written  against  the  Arians,  and  treat  principally  of  the  true  divinity 

1  Migne,  PG.,  Ixxvi.   503 — 1064.  2  Ib.,  lxxv.  9 — 656. 

3  Ib.,  lxxv.  657—1124. 


§    77-      ST.    CYRIL    OF    ALEXANDRIA.  363 

of  the  Son.  When  compared  with  the  later  Christological  writings 
of  Cyril  they  exhibit  a  certain  imperfection  and  obscurity  in  the 
concept  and  exposition  of  the  doctrine  of  the  union  of  the  two  natures 
in  Christ.  A  brief  and  popular  work  on  the  Trinity  (nep\  zrjg  ayiag 
xac  ^wottoiou  zptddog)1,  first  edited  by  Cardinal  Mai,  is  regarded  as 
spurious.  It  is  clearly  the  first  part  of  a  larger  work,  the  second 
part  of  which  treated  of  the  Incarnation  and  which  was  also  discovered 
by  Mai:  rcep}  zyjq  zoo  xopioo  evavdpwnYjaewQ2.  Ehrhard  has  shown 
(1888)  that  it  is  the  work  ofTheodoret  of  Cyrus.  Shortly  after  the 
beginning  of  the  Nestorian  conflict,  429 — 430,  Cyril  remitted  to  the 
imperial  court  three  memorials  on  the  true  faith:  7Tpoo(pwvrjztxo\  nep) 
zrjg  bpftrjg  zdazewg,  the  first  of  which  was  addressed  to  the  emperor 
Theodosius  II.3,  the  second  to  his  two  younger  sisters  Arcadia  and 
Marina4,  and  the  third  to  Pulcheria,  the  elder  sister  of  the  emperor, 
and  to  his  wife  Eudocia5.  To  the  same  period  belongs  the  work 
against  the  blasphemies  of  Nestorius:  xazä  zcov  Neozopioo  doa<prj/itwu 
TrsvrdßißÄoQ  di/zipprjcFig6,  in  five  books,  directed  against  a  collection 
of  the  heresiarch's  sermons,  and  distinguished  for  solidity  of  argu- 
mentation and  cutting  sarcasm.  The  twelve  «Anathematisms»  of  430 
were  defended  by  Cyril  in  an  «apology»  against  the  attacks  of  the  orient- 
al, i.  e.  the  Syrian,  bishops:  dTroXoyrjztxbg  bnep  zwv  dwdexa  xe<paXaiwv 
zzpbg  zobg  zrjg  avazoXyg  eiziaxbnoog1 ;  in  a  rejoinder  to  the  reply  of 
Theodoret  of  Cyrus:  eTTLozoXyj  xpbg  Ebbnziov  npbg  zrjv  Ttapa  Qeodwpizoo 
xara  zwv  dwdexa  xe<paXatwv  avzcpprjacv8 ;  and  in  a  brief  commentary: 
emXomg  zwv  dwdexa  xefaXa'uov 9,  which  was  written  in  43 1  during  his 
imprisonment  at  Ephesus.  Immediately  after  the  council  he  justified 
his  actions,  both  before  and  during  its  sessions,  in  an  «apology»  to 
the  emperor  Theodosius :  XJtyog  äTroXoyrjzixbg10.  He  wrote  also  on  the 
Incarnation  of  the  Divine  Word:  izep).  zrjg  evavftpwnrjoewQ  zoo  fteou 
Äofou11;  on  the  unity  of  person  in  Christ:  ozt  elg  6  Xpiazoq12;  the 
treatises  (first  edited  by  Mai)  against  Nestorius:  dtdXe^tc,  npog  Neaz6ptovn, 
and  against  those  who  do  not  acknowledge  Mary  to  be  the  Mother 
of  God:  xazä  zwv  prt  ßovXopevwv  bfioXoyelv  Seozbxov  zty  ayiav  nap- 
&evouu,  and  finally  and  especially  the  so-called  Scholia  de  Incarna- 
tione  Unigeniti :  rcep\  zyjq  evavSpwTzyffewg  zou  povoyevoug15,  highly  prized 
in  antiquity  but  now  extant  for  the  most  part  only  in  a  Latin  version. 
The  dialogue  on  the  Incarnation  of  the  Only-begotten 16  is  but  another 

1  Ib.,  lxxv.    1 1 47 — 1 1 90. 

2  Ib.,  lxxv.    1419 — 1478,  see  only  the  beginning  of  this  writing. 

3  Ib.,  lxxvi.    1 133 — 1200.  4  Ib.,  Ixxvi.    I20I  — 1336. 
5  Ib.,  lxxvi.    1335— 1420.  6  Ib.,  lxxvi.  9—248. 

7  lb,  lxxvi.   315—386.  8  Ib.,  lxxvi.  385—452. 

9  Ib.,  lxxvi.   293 — 312.  10  Ib.,  lxxvi.   453 — 488. 

11  Ib.,  lxxv.    1413 — 1420.  12  Ib.,  lxxv.    1253 — 1362. 

13  Ib.,  lxxvi.   249 — 256.  u  Ib.,  lxxv.   255^ — 292. 

15  Ib.,  lxxv.    1369 — 1412.  16  Ib.,  lxxv.    1 189 — 1254. 


364  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

edition  of  his  treatise  on  the  true  faith  addressed  to  Theodosius.  The 
genuineness  of  the  work  against  the  Anthropomorphites :  xazä  avftpcoxo- 
tiofxpiTatv1,  or  those  who  attributed  to  God  a  human  figure,  is  de- 
nied, and  justly  so.  Many  of  his  dogmatico-polemical  works  have 
perished.  He  wrote  one  book  against  the  Synousiasts  (Apollinarists), 
three  books  against  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  and  Diodorus  of  Tarsus 
(§  72,  3),  one  book  on  the  true  faith,  and  other  writings,  of  which 
only  fragments  have  reached  us2.  Photius  gives  a  brief  summary3 
of  a  work  written  by  Cyril  against  the  Pelagians  and  addressed  to 
the  emperor  Theodosius  II. 

5.  EXEGETICAL  WRITINGS.  —  In  the  complete  editions  of  his 
writings  the  exegetical  works  take  up  the  greater  part  of  the  volumes. 
The  17  books  on  the  adoration  and  worship  of  God  in  spirit  and 
in  truth:  rrspl  ttjq  iv  rrusüjuart  xai  dJ-qfteia  Trpocxovrjoewq  xat  XarpeiaQ*, 
undertake  to  prove  that  the  law  was  abrogated  only  in  the  letter  and 
not  in  the  spirit,  and  that  spiritual  adoration  was  typically  prefigured 
in  the  institutions  of  the  Old  Testament.  This  work  is  completed 
by  the  thirteen  books  of  «elegant  comments» :  yXa<popd5,  devoted  to 
a  typical  exposition  of  select  Pentateuch  passages.  He  wrote  detailed 
and  continuous  commentaries  on  Isaias6,  and  on  the  twelve  minor 
prophets7.  There  are  also  extant  fragments  or  catenae-scholia  on 
the  books  of  Kings8,  on  Psalms9,  on  some  Canticles,  on  Proverbs, 
and  the  Canticle  of  canticles 10,  and  on  the  prophets  Jeremias,  Baruch, 
Ezechiel,  Daniel11.  He  wrote  also  on  the  New  Testament;  and  among 
other  works,  a  large  and  valuable  commentary  on  the  Gospel  of 
St.  John,  that  has  not  reached  us  in  its  entirety12.  We  possess  also 
fragments  on  Matthew13,  on  Luke14,  on  Romans,  First  and  Second 
Corinthians,  and  Hebrews15.  An  ancient  Syriac  version,  though  not 
without  several  gaps,  exhibits  a  text  of  the  commentary  on  Luke 
more  complete  and  trustworthy  than  the  remnants  of  the  original 
Greek.  His  commentaries  on  the  New  Testament  must  have  been 
written  after  428,  since  the  Commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  St.  John, 
the  earliest  of  these  writings,  refers  to  the  Nestorian  heresy.  His 
labors  on  the  Old  Testament  were  completed  at  an  earlier  date.  His 
intellectual  progress  is  visible  in  the  distinctness  with  which  the  literal 
sense  is  grasped  and  adhered  to  in  the  New  Testament  commen- 
taries.   But  even  in  his  writings  on  the  Old  Testament  the  historico- 

1  Migne,  PG.,  lxxvi.   1065 — 1132.  2  Ib.,  lxxvi.    1423 — 1454. 

3  Bibl.   Cod.   54.  4  Migne,  PG.,  lxviii.   133 — 1126. 

5  Ib.,  lxix.  9—678.  6  Ib.,  lxx.   9—1450. 

7  Ib.,  lxxi  and  lxxii.   9 — 364.  8  Ib.,  lxix.   679 — 698. 

9  Ib.,  lxix.    717—1274.  10  Ib.,  lxix.    1273— 1294. 

11  Ib.,  lxx.   145 1 — 1462.  12  Ib.,   lxxiii  and  lxxiv.   9 — 756. 

13  Ib.,  lxxii.  365—474.  14  Ib  ;  lxxii    475—950. 

15  Ib.,  lxxiv.   773 — 1006. 


§    77-      ST-    CYRIL    OF    ALEXANDRIA.  365 

philological  exposition  is  not  neglected,  e.  g.  in  the  commentary  on 
the  twelve  minor  prophets. 

6.  HOMILIES  AND  LETTERS.  —  Only  a  small  number  of  his  dis- 
courses have  been  preserved  * :  of  the  Homiliae  paschales  or  Festal 
Letters  (see  §  63,  7)  29  have  come  down,  quite  miscellaneous  in 
their  contents.  Among  the  Homiliae  diversae  the  most  interesting 
are  those  delivered  at  the  Council  ofEphesus  in  431,  especially  the 
fourth2,  famous  among  all  the  Marian  panegyrics  of  antiquity.  The 
Encomium  in  S.  Mariam  Deiparam*  is  only  a  much  later  edition, 
re- touched  and  enlarged,  of  this  fourth  Ephesine  homily.  —  88  Letters 
of  Cyril  are  published 4,  but  among  them  are  several  addressed  to 
him  by  others.  The  earliest,  and  also  the  most  important  letters, 
are  those  addressed  to  Nestorius5,  the  latter  two  were  read  and 
accepted  at  the  Council  of  Ephesus  in  431,  and  again  at  Chalcedon 
in  451,  and  at  Constantinople  in  553.  Most  of  the  letters,  however, 
were  written  after  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  and  deal  especially  with 
the  relations  between  himself  and  the  schismatic  Antiochenes.  The 
letter  to  John  of  Antioch 6  known  also  as  the  Symbolum  Ephesinum 
was  approved  and  accepted  by  the  Council  of  Chalcedon. 

7.  HIS  CHRISTOLOGY.  —  Nestorius  had  maintained  that  in  Christ 
there  were  two  personalities  united  only  in  a  moral  sense.  It  fell  to 
Cyril  to  maintain  and  defend  the  traditional  doctrine  of  the  unity  of 
person  in  Jesus  Christ.  We  have  already  called  attention  (see  no.  4) 
to  the  difference  between  the  concept  and  exposition  of  this  truth 
in  the  earlier  as  compared  with  the  later  writings  of  Cyril.  We  have 
here  to  describe  only  the  doctrine  as  found  in  his  writings  after 
the  beginning  of  429.  The  Word  became  man,  he  teaches,  but  did 
not  assume  a  man:  yeyovev  avftpcoTToq,  oux  äuftpcoTiov  äveXaßev1 ;  He 
humbled  Himself,  but  did  not  raise  to  Himself  a  man;  He  made 
His  own  our  human  nature:  cdtau  knot'ijaaTO  ttjv  adpxa;  He  united 
Himself  with  our  human  nature  in  a  substantial  or  personal  union : 
xaz  ooaiav,  xaza  <p6aiv,  xaW  bnboTaaw .  He  is  after  the  Incarnation 
what  He  was  before,  eiq  xac  6  abzog;  He  remained  what  He  was, 
pepevrjxe  onep  rjv;  He  only  assumed  our  human  nature  to  the  unity 
of  His  own  being,  and  is  now  both  God  and  man,  one  in  two  natures : 
ex  duoiv  zeXeiotv,  ex  duoiv  izpaypazoiv,  i(  apcpolv.  This  one  divine 
not  human  person  is  sometimes  called  ev,  sometimes  iu  Trpoaconov, 
and  again  pia  b-Koazaatq  or  pea  (pbatq  zoo  iteob  Xöyoo  aeaapxeopevq. 
It  is  to  be  noted  that  Cyril  uses  as  if  equivalent  the  terms  bitoazaatQ 
and  (poo«;.  The  phrase  pia  (pomg  zob  fteob  Aoyoo  aeaapxcopevrj,  taken 
from  the  profession  of  faith  7tep\  zrjg  aapxwaewQ  too  tieou  Xoyoü,  among 
the  works  of  St.  Athanasius  (§  63,  3),  caused  Cyril  to  be  accused  of 

1  Ib.,  lxxvii.  401  —  1 1 16.  2  Ib.,   Ixxvii.  991 — 996. 

3  lb.,  lxxvii.    1029 — 1040.  4  Ib.,  lxxvii.   9 — 390. 

5  Ep.  2  4   17.  6  Ep.  39.  7  Ep.  45  ad  Succ. 


366  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

teaching  a  commingling  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ.  We  must  note, 
therefore,  his  frequent  insistence  that  he  believes  the  two  natures  to 
be  united  dauyyoiiayg,  drpeTtrwg,  duaXXoicoTcog,  dpzTaßXrjTüjg,  without 
commingling  or  confusion  (aoyyomg,  aojxpaaig^  owoooicooig)  of  any 
kind.  The  phrase  that  he  frequently  uses  after  the  reconciliation  with 
the  Antiochenes,  caused  a  certain  surprise:  he  says  that  before  the 
union  there  were  two  natures,  <p6aeiq9  and  after  it  but  one  (poatg.  By 
this  phrase,  however,  Cyril  intends  only  to  admit  for  an  ideal  moment 
the  conceptual  distinction  of  two  individual  entities;  in  other  words, 
he  teaches  the  union  of  the  Logos  with  a  perfect  human  nature,  com- 
posed of  a  body  and  a  (rational)  soul ;  this  nature,  however,  does 
not  subsist  independently  in  itself  but  in  the  Logos.  He  declares 
elsewhere:  «We  say  that  two  natures,  duo  (puosig,  are  united,  but 
that  after  the  union  there  is  no  longer  a  division  into  two  (natures); 
we  believe,  therefore,  in  one  nature  of  the  Son,  fiiav  efacu  Tnareoopev 
r/ju  too  utotj  (poGLv,  because  He  is  one,  though  become  man  and 
flesh»1.  Here  as  elsewhere  Cyril  expresses  the  union  of  both  natures 
in  Christ  by  the  word  iucoacg,  a  term  of  Christian  origin,  to  which 
he  often  adds  a  more  specific  qualitative:  ivcootg  <pocrixy,  xard  <puoiv, 
xatf  bnoazacnv,  xar  ouoiav.  He  often  rejects,  as  a  Nestorian  term, 
the  word  ivoixymg  which  seemed  to  diminish  the  Incarnation  to  a 
mere  indwelling  of  the  Logos  in  the  man  Jesus.  Still  more  positively 
does  he  reject  another  beloved  term  of  Nestorius,  the  word  auvdyeta 
(moral  union):  «we  reject  the  term  auvdipeta»,  he  writes  to  Nestorius, 
«because  it  is  not  fitted  to  express  the  union»  (Ivoatg)2.  As  a  con- 
sequence of  this  union  of  the  two  natures,  whatever  is  proper  to  the 
human  nature  may  and  ought  to  be  predicated  of  the  one  divine 
person  (communicatio  idiomatum).  It  was  God  who  suffered  and 
was  crucified ;  the  Logos  Himself  underwent  all  the  sufferings  of  His 
human  nature  because  that  which  suffered  was  His  humanity,  His 
body  and  His  soul.  Especially  it  was  also  God  who  was  born,  and 
Mary  is  truly  the  Mother  of  God,  for  the  man  whom  she  bore  was 
God.  In  the  word  fteoroxog  as  opposed  to  the  Xptaroroxog  or  dvftpcoTco- 
roxog  of  the  Nestorians ,  he  found  the  formula  of  the  true  doctrine. 
He  saw  clearly  that  this  word  was  a  kind  of  compendium  of  the 
ecclesiastical  Christology  inasmuch  as  it  presupposes  the  unity  of 
person  and  the  duality  of  natures  in  Christ.  He  says:  «A  correct, 
sufficient,  and  irreproachable  profession  of  faith  is  found  in  the  as- 
sertion of  the  divine  maternity  of  the  Blessed  Virgin :  dpxzt  roiyapoov 
Tzpdg  öpttyv  xac  ddtdßX^rov  rrjg  niarecog  ijptmy  bpoXoyiav  to  Üeotoxov 
Aeyew  xat  bpokoyelv  ryv  dytau  Trapftivov3. 

8.   spurious  works.  —  Many  works  have  been  erroneously  attributed 
to  him.     Migne  (PG. ,    lxxvii)  mentions   the    following   as    dubia   et  aliena: 

1  Ep.  40  ad  Acac.  2  Ep.   17  ad  Nest. 

3  Horn.   15  de  Incam.  Dei  verbi. 


§    77-      ST-    CYRIL    OF    ALEXANDRIA.  367 

De  sacrosancta  trinitate  liber  (1119 — 1174),  Collectio  dictorum  Veteris 
Testamenti  anagogice  expositorum  (1175 — 1290),  Liturgia  S.  Cyrilli  (trans- 
lated from  Coptic  into  Latin,  1291 — 1308).  On  these  and  other  obviously 
spurious  works  cf.  Fessler- Jungmann,  Instit.  Patrol,  ii  2,  78 — 80.  A  Coptic 
homily  on  death  was  published  under  the  name  of  Cyril  and  translated 
into  French  by  E.  Amelineau,  Monuments  pour  servir  ä  l'histoire  de 
l'Egypte  chretienne  aux  IVe  et  Ve  siecles  (Memoires  publies  par  les  mem- 
bres  de  la  Mission  archeologique  franchise  au  Caire  iv),  Paris,  1888, 
pp.  165 — 195.  In  order  to  confirm  the  doctrine  of  papal  supremacy, 
Thomas  Aquinas  quoted  in  his  Opusculum  contra  errores  Graecorum  ad 
Urbanum  IV.  several  passages  from  a  work  of  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria 
entitled :  In  libro  thesaurorum.  He  says  himself  that  he  took  these  citations 
from  the  anonymous  Libellus  de  processione  Spiritus  Sancti  (in  which  Li- 
bellus  they  were  said  to  occur  in  secundo,  according  to  annother  reading 
in  tertio  libro  thesaurorum).  From  the  Opusculum  these  passages  made 
their  way  into  works  of  other  Western  theologians.  These  quotations 
cannot  be  verified  as  words  of  St.  Cyril ;  they  are,  therefore,  and  also  for 
intrinsic  reasons,  to  be  looked  on  as  spurious,  probably  forged  by  the 
author  of  the  Libellus.  Cf.  F.  H  Reusch,  Die  Fälschungen  in  dem  Traktat 
des  Thomas  von  A  quin  gegen  die  Griechen,  in  Abhandlungen  der  kgl. 
bayer.  Akad.  der  Wissensch.,  Munich,   1889. 

9.     COMPLETE    EDITIONS.       SEPARATE    EDITIONS.       TRANSLATIONS.    —    The 

first  and  only  complete  edition  of  the  works  of  Cyril  in  the  original  text 
is  due  to  a  canon  of  Paris,  J.  Aubert ,  Paris,  1638,  6  vols.  For  other 
editions,  complete  Latin  collections,  and  earlier  Graeco-Latin  editions  of 
separate  works,  cf.  Fabricius- Harks ,  Bibl.  Gr.,  ix.  454 — 457;  Hoffmann, 
Bibliograph.  Lexikon,  Leipzig,  1838— 1845,  i.  484 — 494.  —  In  modern 
times  Mai  in  particular  published  many  writings  of  Cyril  whole  and  frag- 
mentary, unknown  to  Aubert,  and  thereby  enriched  considerably  the  Migne 
edition  of  Cyril  (PG.,  lxviii — lxxvii),  Paris,  1859.  Valuable  preliminary 
work  was  accomplished  by  Ph.  Ed.  Pusey  in  his  critical  editions  of  diffe- 
rent works  of  Cyril.  For  some  lately-discovered  Coptic  papyrus-fragments 
of  the  De  adoratione  in  spiritu  et  veritate  (of  the  books  vii  and  viii)  see 
J.  H.  Bernard,  On  some  fragments  of  an  uncial  Ms.  of  S.  Cyril  of  Alex- 
andria written  on  papyrus ,  in  The  transactions  of  the  Royal  Irish  Aca- 
demy, part  18,  Dublin,  1892,  xxix.  653 — 672.  —  We  have  already  men- 
tioned (§  60,  1)  the  new  edition  of  the  remnants  of  the  work  of  Julian  by 
K.  J.  Neumann.  It  contains  (pp.  42 — 63):  Cyrilli  Alexandrini  librorum 
contra  Iulianum  fragmenta  syriaca,  edidit  E.  Nestle,  and  (pp.  64 — 87): 
Cyrilli  Alex,  librorum  contra  Iulianum  xi — xx  fragmenta  graeca  et  syriaca 
latine  reddita,  disposuit  C.  J.  Neumann.  —  Dog77iatico-polemical  works:  In 
the  Analecta  sacra  et  classica,  Paris,  1888,  part  1,  pp.  38 — 46,  Pitra  com- 
municated some  manuscript-excerpts  of  the  Liber  thesaurorum  de  sancta 
et  consubstantiali  trinitate.  —  S.  P.  N.  Cyrilli  archiepisc.  Alex.  Epistolae 
tres  oecumenicae,  Libri  quinque  contra  Nestorium,  XII  Capitum  explanatio, 
XII  Capitum  defensio  utraque,  Scholia  de  incarnatione  Unigeniti,  edidit 
post  Aubertum  Ph.  Ed.  Pusey,  Oxford,  1875.  S.  P.  N.  Cyrilli  archiepisc. 
Alex.  De  recta  fide  ad  Imperatorem,  De  incarnatione  Unigeniti  dialogus, 
De  recta  fide  ad  Principissas,  De  recta  fide  ad  Augustas,  Quod  unus  Chri- 
stus, Dialogus  Apologeticus  ad  Imperatorem,  edidit  post  Aubertum  Ph.  Ed. 
Pusey,  Oxford,  1877.  In  the  dialogue  De  incarnatione  Unigeniti  [Migne, 
PG.,  lxxv.  1189 — 1254)  Pusey  sees,  a  second  edition  made  by  St.  Cyril 
himself  of  the  De  recta  fide  ad  Imperatorem.  Pusey  added  to  the  Greek 
text  of  these  two  works  a  Syriac  version  of  Rabbulas,  bishop  of  Edessa 
(§  83,  4);  he  also  published  in  his  edition  of  the  commentary  on  the  Gospel 


368  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

of  St.  John  (Oxford,  1872,  iii.  476 — 607)  some  Greek  and  Syriac  fragments 
of  lost  dogmatico  -  polemical  works  and  of  the  lost  work  against  the 
Anthropomorphites  (Tractatus  ad  Tiberium  diaconum  duo).  The  latter  work 
is  an  unsuccessful  compilation  from  the  genuine  writings  of  St.  Cyril,  De 
Dogmatum  solutione  and  Responsio  ad  Tiberium,  with  additions  from  the 
spurious  homily  of  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  In  diem  natalem  Christi;  cf.  Pusey's 
edition  of  the  commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  John,  iii.  545  f.  On  a  new 
fragment  of  the  De  dogmatum  solutione  in  which  the  author  refers  to  the 
Glaphyra  and  to  the  commentary  on  Osee,  cf.  G.  Mercati,  Varia  Sacra, 
Rome,  1903,  pp.  83  f.  — Exegetical  works:  The  Glaphyra  were  translated  into 
Syriac  by  Moses  of  Aghel  (second  half  of  the  sixth  century) ;  two  fragments 
of  that  version  are  found  in  J.  Guidi,  Rendiconti  della  R.  Accademia  dei 
Lincei  (1886),  ii.  397 — 416  545 — 547.  —  S.  P.  N.  Cyrilli  archiepisc.  Alexand. 
In  XII  prophetas.  Post  Pontanum  et  Aubertum  edidit  Ph.  Ed.  Pusey,  Oxford, 
1868,  2  vols.  S.  P.  N.  Cyrilli  archiep.  Alex.  In  D.  Ioannis  evangelium. 
Accedunt  fragmenta  varia  necnon  tractatus  ad  Tiberium  diaconum  duo. 
Edidit  post  Aubertum  Ph.  Ed.  Pusey,  Oxford,  1872,  3  vols.  In  Pusey's 
edition  of  the  commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  the  text  is  followed 
(iii.  173—440)  by  fragments  of  the  commentaries  on  Romans,  1.  and 
2.  Corinthians,  and  Hebrews,  also  (441 — 451)  by  a  criticism  of  the  frag- 
ments in  Migne  (PG. ,  lxxiv.  757 — 774  1007 — 1024)  relative  to  the  Apo- 
calypse, the  Epistle  of  James,  the  1.  and  2.  of  Peter,  the  1.  of  John, 
and  the  Catholic  Epistle  of  Jude.  — Homilies  and  Letters:  Homiletic  frag- 
ments are  extant  in  Pusey's  edition  of  the  commentary  on  the  Gospel  of 
John  (iii.  452 — 475).  The  Epistolae  tres  oecumenicae,  already  mentioned, 
are  (in  Pusey)  the  second  and  third  letters  to  Nestorius  and  the  letter 
to  John  of  Antioch  (see  no.  6).  Letter  80  attributed  to  Cyril  by  the 
Chronicon  Paschale  is  only  a  part  of  letter  n.  260  of  Basil  the  Great; 
cf.  G.  Mercati,  Varia  Sacra,  Rome,  1903,  p.  60,  n.  1.  Many  works  of 
Cyril  were  translated  into  Latin  during  the  life  of  the  author  by  Marius 
Mercator  (§  95,  1),  in  particular  the  three  letters  to  Nestorius,  the  two 
apologies  for  the  «anathematisms»  ,  and  the  Scholia  de  incarnatione  Uni- 
geniti  (among  the  works  of  Marius  Mercator;  Migne,  PL.,  xlviii).  In 
addition  to  the  works  and  fragments  edited  by  Pusey  and  Nestle,  con- 
siderable remnants  of  a  commentary  on  Luke  have  been  preserved  in 
an  ancient  Syriac  version:  S.  Cyrilli  Alexand.  archiep.  Commentarii  in 
Lucae  evang.  quae  supersunt  Syriace  e  manuscriptis  apud  Museum  Britan- 
nicum  edidit  R.  Payne  Smith,  Oxford,  1858.  A  Commentary  upon  the 
Gospel  according  to  St.  Luke,  by  S.  Cyril,  patriarch  of  Alexandria.  Now 
first  translated  into  English  from  an  ancient  Syriac  version  by  R.  Payne 
Smith,  Oxford,  1859,  2  vols.  Fragments  of  the  homilies  of  Cyril  of  Alex- 
andria on  the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke,  edited  from  a  Nitrian  MS.  by  W.  Wright, 
London,  1874.  An  Armenian  version  of  his  works  was  published  at 
Constantinople,  in  17 17. 

10.  new  versions,  recensions,  works  on  cyril.  —  A  German  trans- 
lation of  select  works  of  Cyril  was  published  by  H.  Hayd,  in  the  Biblio- 
thek der  Kirchenväter,  Kempten,  1879.  An  English  anonymous  version 
of  the  Commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  John  was  published  at  London,  1880 
to  1886,  2  vols.  A.  Ehr  hard,  Die  Cyrill  von  Alexandrien  zugeschriebene 
Scrift  icepl  t%  tou  xupi'ou  ivavdpanrqaeeK^  ein  Werk  Theodorets  von  Cyrus 
(Inaug.-Diss.) ,  Tübingen,  1888.  Id.,  Eine  unechte  Marienhomilie  des 
hl.  Cyrill  von  Alexandrien  (i.  e.  the  Encomium  in  S.  Mariam  Deiparam: 
Migne,  PG.,  lxxvii.  1029 — 1040),  in  Rom.  Quartalschr.  f.  christl.  Altertums- 
kunde und  f.  Kirchengesch.  (1889),  iii.  97—113.  J.  Kohlhof  er,  S.  Cyrillus 
Alexandrinus  de  sanctincatione  (Diss,  inaug.),  Würzburg,  1866.    J.  Kopallik, 


§    77-      ST-    CYRIL    OF    ALEXANDRIA.  369 

Cyrillus  von  Alexandrien,  Mainz,  1881.  N.  II  ay  10  as,  KuptXAo«  6  'AXsfcvfyefo« 
apytsuiaxo-oc,  Leipzig,  1884.  i^.  Loofs,  Leontius  von  Byzanz,  Leipzig, 
1887,  i.  40 — 49.  Fr.  Schäfer,  Die  Christologie  des  hl.  Cyrillus  von  Alex- 
andrien in  der  römischen  Kirche,  pp.  432 — 534,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr. 
(1895),  lxxvii.  421 — 447.  E.  Weigl,  Die  Heilslehre  des  hl.  Cyrill  von 
Alexandrien,  Mainz,  1905.  Cf.  Hefele,  Konziliengeschichte,  2.  ed.,  ii. 
141 — 288:  «Die  dritte  allgemeine  Synode  zu  Ephesus  im  Jahre  431.» 
A.  Rehrmann,  Die  Christologie  des  hl.  Cyrillus  von  Alexandrien,  Hildes- 
heim, 1902.  As  to  the  responsibility  of  Cyril  for  the  death  of  Hypatia, 
cf.  Fr.  Schäfer,  in  The  Catholic  University  Bulletin  (1902),  viii.  441—453. 
He  denies  it  and  lays  the  blame  at  the  door  of  Orestes.  E.  Michaud, 
St.  Cyrille  d'Alexandrie  et  l'Eucharistie,  in  Revue  internationale  de  Theo- 
logie (1902),  pp.  99 — 614  675—692. 

11.  NESTORius.  —  The  homilies  and  letters  of  Nestorius  (f  after  439) 
were  committed  to  the  flames  by  order  of  Theodosius  II. ;  some  fragments 
of  them  are  found  in  the  Acts  of  the  Council  of  Ephesus  and  in  the 
writings  of  Cyril  (especially  in  the  5  books  against  the  blasphemies  of 
Nestorius,  see  no.  4)  and  principally  (see  no.  9)  in  the  versions  of  Marius 
Mercator  (Sermones  5  Nestorii  adv.  Dei  genitricem  Mariam,  Nestorii  ser- 
mones  4  adv.  haeresim  Pelagianam  etc.).  The  twelve  counter-anathema- 
tisms  (see  no.  2)  have  been  saved  only  through  the  version  of  Mercator. 
Some  Greek  homilies  attributed  to  Chrysostom,  Basil  of  Seleucia,  and 
other  homilies  delivered  in  Greek  are  more  or  less  probably  the  work  of 
Nestorius,  cf.  P.  Batiffol,  in  Revue  Biblique  (1900),  ix.  329—353.  F.  Loofs, 
Die  Überlieferung  und  Anordnung  der  Fragmente  des  Nestorius  (Progr.), 
Halle,  1904. 

12.  friends  and  allies  of  Cyril.  —  One  of  the  first  opponents  of 
Nestorius  was  Proclus,  in  426  made  bishop  of  Cyzicus  in  the  Propontis,  and 
in  434  made  patriarch  of  Constantinople  (f  446).  There  are  attributed  to 
him  25  homilies  [Migne,  PG.,  lxv.  679 — 850),  the  three  last  of  which  have 
been  translated  from  Syriac  into  Latin,  a  tractate  or  rather  a  fragment  of  one 
on  the  tradition  regarding  the  Holy  Mass  (~£pi  ::apaooj£cos  xrfi  ffetac  XstToiip?««) 
(ib.,  849 — 852),  of  very  doubtful  authenticity,  and  some  letters  (ib.,  851 
to  886)  and  fragments  (ib.,  885  —  888).  A  Syriac  version  of  the  last  three 
homilies  is  published  by  j.  B.  Chabot,  in  Rendiconti  della  R.  Accademia 
dei  Lincei,  CI.  di  Scienze  morali  etc.,  ser.  v.  5  (1896),  178 — 197.  For  the 
celebrated  Oratio  I,  De  laudibus  S.  Mariae  [Migne ,  PG.,  lxv.  679 — 692), 
cf.  v.  Lehner,  Die  Marienverehrung  in  den  ersten  Jahrhunderten,  2.  ed., 
Stuttgart,  1886,  pp.  81  213—217.  —  A  new  letter  of  Proclus,  that  re- 
sembles a  profession  of  faith  and  is  addressed  Ad  singulos  occidentis  epi- 
scopos,  is  found  in  Spicilegium  Casinense  i.  144 — 147.  Another  letter  to 
Isaac  the  Great  is  found  in  the  Book  of  letters,  ed.  J.  Ismireanz,  Tiflis. 
1901.  —  In  430  some  monks  of  Constantinople,  among  them  Basilius  and 
Thalassius,  wrote  to  the  emperor  Theodosius  complaining  of  ill-treatment 
by  the  patriarch  Nestorius  and  asking  for  the  convocation  of  an  ecumenical 
council  [Migne,  PG. ,  xci.  147 1  — 1480).  —  At  the  Council  of  Ephesus 
Memnon,  bishop  of  that  city,  was  a  valiant  ally  of  Cyril;  we  have  from 
his  hand  one  letter  addressed  in  431  to  the  clergy  of  Constantinople  (ib., 
lxxvii.  1463 — 1466).  —  Among  the  clergy  of  Constantinople  none  was 
more  energetic  and  influential  at  Ephesus  in  favor  of  Cyril  than  the  archi- 
mandrite Dalmatius;  two  letters  and  a  so-called  apology  bear  his  name 
fib.,  lxxxv.  1797 — 1802).  —  Theodotus,  bishop  of  Ancyra  in  Galatia 
(f  before  446),  defended  the  teaching  of  Cyril  bravely  at  Ephesus ;  he  has 
left  us  also  an  exposition  of  the  creed  of  the  318  Fathers  of  the  Council 
of  Nicaea  (ib.,  lxxvii.  1313 — 1348),  six  homilies  (ib.,  lxxvii.  1349—1432),  and 

Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  24 


370 


SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 


some  fragments  (ib.,  lxxvii.  143 1 — I432)-  —  &•  A.  Wallis  Budge,  The  martyr- 
dom and  miracles  of  St.  George  of  Cappadocia.  The  Coptic  text  edited 
with  an  English  translation  (Oriental  Text  Series  I),  London,  1888.  This 
work  contains  besides  an  account  of  the  martyrdom  and  miracles  of 
St.  George,  two  panegyrics  on  the  Saint,  the  first  of  which  (pp.  38 — 44 
236 — 241)  is  attributed  to  Theodosius,  Monophysite  patriarch  of  Jerusalem 
(f  after  453);  the  second  and  the  much  longer  one  (pp.  83 — 172  274 — 331) 
is  said  to  be  the  work  of  Theodotus,  bishop  of  Ancyra.  —  Firmus,  bishop 
of  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia,  left  45  short  letters  (Migne,  PG.,  lxxvii.  1481 
to  1 5 14)",  Acacius,  bishop  of  Melitene,  left  one  homily  and  two  letters 
(ib.,  lxxvii.  1467 — 1472);  also  two  letters  in  Armenian,  one  to  Isaac  the 
Great,  the  other  «to  the  Armenians»,  cf.  Ismireanz,  1.  c.  Of  Amphilochius, 
bishop  of  Side  in  Pamphylia,  one  fragment  of  a  letter  (ib.,  lxxvii.  15 15  to 
1 5 16)  has  survived.  All  three  bishops  were  very  prominent  at  Ephesus  in 
support  of  Cyril. 

13.  adversaries  of  cyril.  —  At  the  beginning  of  the  conflict,  John, 
patriarch  of  Antioch  (f  441),  took  the  side  of  Nestorius  (see  no.  2),  but 
in  433  was  reconciled  to  Cyril  and  accepted  his  view  of  the  heresiarch; 
a  few  letters  of  John  are  extant  [Migne,  PG.,  lxxvii.  1449 — 1462).  —  At 
Ephesus,  Paul,  bishop  of  Emesa,  had  been  an  adherent  of  the  Antiochenes, 
but  later  on  was  mediator  between  John  and  Cyril ;  two  or  three  homilies 
and  a  letter  bear  his  name  (ib.,  lxxvii.  1433  — 1444).  —  Andrew,  bishop 
of  Samosata,  attacked  in  the  name  of  the  bishops  of  Syria  the  anathema- 
tisms  of  Cyril ;  some  large  fragments  of  his  work  are  extant  in  the  apology 
of  Cyril  (see  no.  4),  also  a  few  letters  (ib.,  lxxxv.  161 1 — 1612).  —  For  the 
writings  of  Theodoret  of  Cyrus  against  Cyril  see  §  78,  7.  There  is  also  extant 
a  letter  of  the  priest  (later  on  a  bishop)  Ibas  of  Edessa  (f  457)  to  Maris, 
bishop  of  Hardaschir  in  Persia  [Mansi,  SS.  Cone.  Coll.  vii.  241 — 250), 
written  probably  in  433,  in  opposition  to  the  anathematisms  of  Cyril;  it 
obtained  a  deplorable  celebrity  during  the  controversy  of  the  Three  Chapters. 

14.  eusebius  of  Alexandria.  —  According  to  an  ancient  biography 
of  him,  claiming  to  be  the  work  of  a  certain  John,  notary  of  the  Church 
of  Alexandria  [Migne,  PG. ,  Ixxxvi  1,  297 — 310),  Eusebius  was  a  monk 
famed  for  his  virtue,  whom  Cyril  himself  consecrated  as  his  successor, 
and  who  governed  the  Alexandrine  community  for  seven  (elsewhere  John 
says  twenty)  years.  As  a  matter  of  fact  it  was  Dioscurus  (§  78,  12)  who 
succeeded  Cyril  on  the  see  of  Alexandria.  So  far  it  has  been  impossible 
to  throw  any  light  on  the  personality  of  this  alleged  bishop  Eusebius. 
A  goodly  number  of  homilies  bear  the  name  of  Eusebius  of  Alexandria. 
Augusti  maintained  (1829)  that  they  were  the  work  of  Eusebius  of  Emesa, 
but  Thilo  showed  (1832)  that  some  at  least  are  ascribed  in  the  manuscripts 
to  Eusebius  of  Alexandria  (§  61,  2).  A.  Mai  discovered  and  published 
several  other  discourses  under  the  name  of  Eusebius  of  Alexandria,  but 
intrinsic  evidences  indicate  that  they  were  composed  during  the  fifth  cen- 
tury. In  Migne  (PG.,  Ixxxvi  1,  313 — 462)  may  be  found  22  (21)  Sermones 
Eusebii  Alexandrini  Episcopi. 

§  78.    Theodoret  of  Cyrus. 

I .  HIS  LIFE.  —  This  the  most  learned  of  the  adversaries  of  Cyril 
was  born  at  Antioch  about  386  (393?),  and  received  his  early  train- 
ing in  the  monastic  schools  of  that  city.  Chrysostom  and  Theodore 
of  Mopsuestia  were  his  masters,  Nestorius  and  John  of  Antioch  his 
fellow-students.    In  423  he  was  made  bishop  of  Cyrus,  a  small  town 


§    78.      THEODORET    OF    CYRUS.  371 

of  Syria  about  two  days'  journey  from  Antioch,  but  subject  to  the 
metropolitan  of  Hierapolis.  Cyrus  was  the  capital  of  the  territory  of 
Cyrestica,  a  wild  and  mountainous  but  thickly  populated  region.  In 
this  office  Theodoret  displayed  tireless  zeal,  also  much  generosity 
and  self-sacrifice.  He  was  especially  successful  in  restoring  the  unity 
of  faith  among  his  diocesans.  He  could  write  in  449  to  Pope  Leo: 
«With  the  aid  of  divine  grace  I  have  cleansed  more  than  a  thousand 
souls  from  the  virus  of  Marcion,  and  from  the  party  of  Arius  and 
Eunomius.  I  have  led  back  many  others  to  Christ  the  Lord1.»  It 
was  his  interest  in  the  purity  of  traditional  doctrine  that  led  him  to 
enter  the  lists  against  Cyril  and  his  anathematisms ;  he  was  himself 
deeply  imbued  with  the  theological  ideas  of  the  Antiochene  school, 
and  believed  that  the  heresy  of  Apollinaris  was  lurking  in  the  teach- 
ings of  Cyril.  He  maintained  these  views  even  after  the  decisions 
of  the  council  of  Ephesus  and  refused  to  give  his  adhesion  to  the 
terms  of  reconciliation  between  Cyril  and  the  bishops  of  the  East  in 
433.  The  Union-Creed  that  Cyril  then  accepted  was  probably  the 
work  of  Theodoret,  who  saw  in  this  act  of  Cyril  a  withdrawal  of  the 
error  contained  in  his  anathematisms;  moreover,  Theodoret  was  thereby 
strengthened  in  his  refusal  to  condemn  Nestorius,  the  friend  of  his 
youth.  It  was  only  in  435,  apparently,  that  he  joined  the  «Union», 
after  John  of  Antioch  had  renounced  his  demand  for  a  formal  re- 
cognition of  the  condemnation  of  Nestorius.  During  the  later  Mono- 
physite  controversies  this  attitude  of  Theodoret  was  the  source  to 
him  of  many  and  great  sufferings.  Eutyches,  archimandrite  of  Con- 
stantinople, asserted  that  there  was  in  Christ  but  one  nature,  juca 
<p6<nq,  not  in  the  sense  of  one  individual  person,  as  Cyril  had  taught 
(§  77 1  7)  >  Dut  m  the  sense  of  a  compound  nature,  in  which  both 
divinity  and  humanity  had  been  fused  together.  Thereby  Eutyches 
affirmed  the  contrary  error  or  the  opposite  extreme  to  Nestorianism, 
and  Dioscurus,  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  a  rude  and  uncultured  man, 
sympathized  with  the  ideas  of  Eutyches ;  so  at  the  Robber- Synod  of 
Ephesus  (449)  Dioscurus  deposed,  without  a  hearing,  Theodoret  and 
other  friends  of  Nestorius.  Theodoret  appealed  to  Pope  Leo,  but 
was  compelled  to  yield  to  Monophysite  violence  and  to  go  into 
exile.  In  the  following  year  emperor  Marcian  recalled  him  and 
Pope  Leo  re-instated  him  in  his  see.  He  assisted  at  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon  (451)  though  Dioscurus  and  the  Monophysites  did  their 
best  to  exclude  him ;  this  time  he  concurred  in  the  anathema  against 
Nestorius  and  was  thoroughly  rehabilitated.  Thenceforth  he  lived  in 
peace,  concerned  only  with  the  business  of  his  diocese  and  his  literary 
labors.     He  died  (458)  in  communion  with  the  Church. 

2.  APOLOGETIC  WRITINGS.  —  Theodoret  is  the  author  of  the  last 
and  most  perfect  of  the  early  Graeco-Christian  apologies.    It  is  entitled 

1  Ep.   113. 

24* 


372 


SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 


«Healing  of  the  heathen  ailments,  or  knowledge  of  the  Gospel  truth 
by  way  of  Hellenic  philosophy» :  kkXyvixcov  UepaTTeorixY]  Ttafhj pdrcov 
v)  edayxshxrjQ  äh)$eiaq  i$  eXXrjvtxrjQ  (piloooyiac,  eTriyvcooiQ,  known  also 
as  « Graecarum  affectionum  curatio » 1.  The  preface  shows  that  this  title 
is  original ;  the  second  half  of  the  title  indicates  the  plan  and  the  spirit 
of  the  work.  He  begins  (book  i)  by  the  explanation  and  refutation 
of  the  heathen  objection  that  the  apostles  were  not  men  of  scientific 
culture;  thereupon  he  compares  (books  2  — 12)  the  answers  given 
respectively  by  Christians  and  heathens  to  various  fundamental 
questions  of  philosophy  and  theology:  origin  of  the  world,  world 
of  spirits,  matter  and  cosmos,  nature  of  man  etc.  In  this  way  the 
light  of  truth  shines  with  an  enhanced  splendor  in  contrast  to  the  dark- 
ness of  falsehood.  In  this  work  he  made  large  use  of  all  preceding- 
apologies,  especially  the  «Stromata»  of  Clement  of  Alexandria  and 
the  «Evangelical  Preparation»  of  Eusebius  of  Caesarea.  It  was  com- 
posed, according  to  Gamier,  in  427.  The  ten  long  and  beautiful 
discourses:  mpi  rcpovoiaq  Xoyoi  r3,  on  God's  Providence  in  the  govern- 
ment of  the  world  (Theism  versus  Deism),  are  also  apologetic  in  cha- 
racter; they  were  delivered  at  Antioch  very  probably  about  432. 

3.  DOGMATI CO-POLEMICAL  WRITINGS.  —  To  the  year  430,  apparent- 
ly, belongs  the  famous  «Refutation  (ävarponrj)  of  the  twelve  ana- 
thematisms  of  Cyril.  In  his  answer,  trie  latter  reproduced  it,  most 
probably  in  its  entirety3,  thereby  saving  its  text  for  posterity.  Theo- 
doret  wrote  also  a  Pentalogium  (five  books)  against  Cyril  and  the 
Council  of  Ephesus,  but  it  has  perished  with  the  exception  of  a 
few  fragments4.  The  two  books  «On  the  holy  and  vivifying  Trinity» 
and  «On  the  Incarnation  of  the  Lord»5  that  Ehrhard  has  success- 
fully restored  to  Theodoret,  were  written  between  431  and  435.  In 
both  of  them  Cyril  and  the  Fathers  of  Ephesus  are  depicted  as 
heirs  of  the  Apollinarist  heresy.  Theodoret  wrote,  about  447,  an 
extensive  work  against  Eutychianism  or  Monophysitism,  entitled  «The 
Beggar  or  the  Polymorph»:  zpaviorrjQ  yvoi  7toX6pop<poQ%.  He  explains 
in  the  preface  that  the  title  is  justified  by  the  conduct  of  the  Mono- 
physites,  whose  heresy  is  nothing  more  than  an  ancient  miscellaneous 
folly  collected,  beggar-wise,  from  Simon  Magus,  Cerdo,  Marcion, 
Valentinus,  Bardesanes,  Apollinaris,  Arius  and  Eunomius.  It  is 
divided  into  four  books,  in  three  of  which  he  sets  forth  by  way  of 
dialogues  between  a  Beggar  and  an  Orthodox  (believer)  the  un- 
changeable ((hpenTOQ)  character  of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  the  non- 
mixture  (aouyyuToz)  of  the  divinity  and  humanity,  and  the  im- 
passibility (anattygj  of  the  divinity;    the  fourth  book  is  a  syllogistic 

1  Migne,  PG.,  lxxxiii.  783 — 1152.  2  Ib.,  Ixxxiii.   555  —  774.                  L 

3  Ib.,  lxxvi.  385—452;  cf.  §  77,  4.  4  Ib.,  lxxxiv.  65—88. 

5  Ib.,  lxxv.   1 147— 1190   1419— 1478;  cf.  §  77,   4. 

6  Ib.,  lxxxiii.  27 — 336. 


§    78.      THEODORET    OF    CYRUS.  373 

summary  (dTtodsi^eiQ   dtä   aoAAoyiopcov)    of   the    preceding    argument. 
He  wrote  other  dogmatico  polemical  works  that  have  perished. 

4.  EXEGETICAL  WRITINGS.  —  They  are  partly  treatises  on  Bible- 
texts,  partly  continuous  scripture-commentaries.  He  wrote  treatises 
of  the  first  kind  on  the  Octateuch  (Pentateuch,  Josue,  Judges,  Ruth)  \ 
on  the  4  Books  of  Kings  and  also  on  the  2  Books  of  Paralipomenon2; 
both  of  these  works  proceed  by  way  of  question  and  answer,  and 
were  composed  toward  the  end  of  his  life.  There  are  also  extant 
commentaries  on  the  Psalms3,  on  the  Canticle  of  canticles4,  on  all 
the  prophets 5,  on  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul 6.  Theodoret  is  held  to  be 
the  greatest  exegete  of  Graeco- Christian  antiquity.  Indeed,  his  com- 
mentaries are  both  copious  and  excellent  in  contents,  also  incomparable 
models  of  exegetical  style,  by  reason  of  their  compactness,  brevity, 
and  transparent  lucidity  of  diction.  His  hermeneutical  principles  are 
those  of  the  Antiochene  school,  yet  he  never  falls  into  the  excessive 
literalness  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  as  maybe  seen  in  the  preface 
to  his  commentary  on  the  Psalms7,  or  in  his  defence  of  the  alle- 
gorical significance  of  the  Canticle  of  canticles  in  the  preface  of  his 
commentary8  on  it.  He  does  not  pretend  to  originality,  though  he 
is  not  content  with  being  merely  a  compiler  of  other  men's  thoughts9. 
It  may  be  said  that  with  Theodoret  the  golden  age  of  the  Antio- 
chene school  closes;  it  fell  to  him  to  hand  over  to  posterity  its 
highest  achievements,  and  right  nobly  did  he  perform  his  task. 

5.  HISTORICAL  WRITINGS.  —  His  historical  writings  are  also  very 
valuable.  His  Church  History  exxlTjataartxr]  iaropia10,  written  about 
450,  takes  up  the  narrative  where  Eusebius  (§  62,  2)  left  off,  and 
treats  in  five  books  the  vicissitudes  of  the  Church  from  the  beginning 
of  the  Arian  controversies  to  the  outbreak  of  Nestorianism  (323 
to  about  428).  The  narrative  centres  chiefly  about  the  patriarchate 
ofAntioch.  He  made  use  not  only  of  Eusebius,  but  also  of  Socrates, 
Sozomen,  and  probably  of  Rufinus.  His  History  of  the  Monks,  iptlo- 
ttsog  iGTopia  rj  aoxyrixr}  TtoAtreia 11,  written  about  444,  is  a  very  inter- 
esting account  of  the  life  of  celebrated  Christian  ascetics  in  the 
East;  it  closes  with  a  treatise  on  the  love  of  God  (nep\  t?jQ  ftsiac; 
xai  äyioLQ  äydTiTjQ)  as  exhibited  in  the  ascetic  life12.  The  «Compen- 
dium of  Heretical  Fables»,  atpsrixrJQ  xaxoputtiaQ  intropiij13.  composed 
certainly  after  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  (451),  develops  in  4  books 

1  Ib.,  lxxx.   75—528.  2  Ib.,  lxxx.   527—858. 

3  Ib.,  lxxx.  857 — 1998;  cf.  the  supplements,  ib.,  lxxxiv.    19 — 32. 

4  Ib.,  Ixxxi.  27 — 214. 

5  Ib.,  Ixxxi.   215 — 1988;    the  collection  of  scholia  (ib  ,   215 — 494)    represents    the 
original  text  of  the  commentary  on  Isaias. 

6  Ib.,  lxxxii.'  35—878.  7  Ib.,  lxxx.  860.  8  Ib.,  Ixxxi.  29  ff. 

9  Cf.  preface  to  Daniel:   ib.,  Ixxxi.  1257,  and  t<j  the  minor  prophets:  ib.,  Ixxxi.  1548. 
10  Ib.,  lxxxii.  881  —  1280.  M  Ib.,  lxxxii.   1283— 1496 

12  Ib.,  lxxxii.    1497— 1522.  13  Ib.,  Ixxxiii.   335 — 556. 


374  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

and  in  a  very  concise  way  the  history  of  heresies  since  the  time  of 
Simon  Magus;  in  the  fifth  book  he  confronts  the  «variations  of  error» 
with  a  sketch  of  dogmatic  and  moral  faith  as  found  in  the  Church. 
The  chapter  on  Nestorius,  toward  the  end  of  the  fourth  book,  is 
considered  spurious  by  some  scholars. 

6.  HOMILIES  AND  LETTERS.  —  Most  of  his  homilies  have  perished. 
The  authenticity  of  the  homily  on  the  Nativity  of  St.  John  the  Bap- 
tist *  is  very  doubtful.  Photius  has  preserved 2  some  passages  of  the 
five  highly  laudatory  orations  on  Chrysostom.  There  are  also  extant 
some  homiletic  fragments  in  Latin3.  His  (ten)  discourses  on  Provi- 
dence already  mentioned  (see  no.  2)  are  not  genuine  homilies.  — 
Many  of  his  letters  have  been  preserved 4.  Not  to  speak  of  their  value 
for  the  history  of  dogma  and  the  history  of  the  Church,  these  letters 
of  Theodoret  have  always  been  prized  for  the  polish  and  grace  of 
their  style,  their  felicitous  diction,  and  the  unpretentious  learning 
that  they  display.  The  48  letters  first  made  known  by  Sakkelion 
(1885)  exhibit  the  great  bishop  principally  in  his  practical  relations 
with  the  citizens  of  his  episcopal  city  and  the  imperial  magistrates 
at  Constantinople. 

7.  CHRISTOLOGY  OF  THEODORET.  —  In  his  book  against  the  ana- 
thematisms  of  Cyril,  the  Nestorian  thesis  of  a  double  hypostasis  in 
Christ  is  accepted  and  defended  by  Theodoret.  The  Fifth  Ecumenic- 
al Council  of  Constantinople  (553)  condemned  this  work,  together 
with  the  Pentalogium,  and  some  letters  and  homilies  in  which  Theo- 
doret had  manifested  his  opposition  to  Cyril  and  the  Council  of 
Ephesus  and  his  sympathies  for  Nestorius.  In  his  work  on  the  In- 
carnation of  our  Lord  he  begins  by  rejecting  expressly  any  polemic- 
al tendency,  but  proceeds  nevertheless  to  defend  Nestorian  doctrine. 
He  accepts  the  term  tieoroxoc,  only  in  an  improper  sense  and  main- 
tains that  the  term  äv&ptüTtoroxoQ  is  (at  least)  as  justifiable.  «The 
Blessed  Virgin»,  he  says  at  the  end,  «is  called  by  the  masters  of 
piety  both  Mother  of  God  and  Mother  of  Man,  the  latter  because 
she  bore  in  reality  one  like  unto  herself  (coq  (poaei  zbv  eoixora  yzv- 
vrjaaaa);  the  former  because  the  figure  of  the  slave  is  united  with 
the  figure  of  the  divinity  (wq  rrjq  too  doohou  popcprJQ  xai  fteou  rrjv 
fiopfTjv  yvcofievrjv  eyooarjQ;  c.  35)».  It  was  only  at  a  later  date  and 
gradually  that  Theodoret  grew  reconciled  to  the  anathematisms  of 
Cyril  and  accepted  formally  and  professed  the  ecclesiastical  doctrine 
of  one  person  in  two  natures.  Though  there  are  some  difficulties  in 
the  way  of  this  statement,  as  defended  after  others  by  Bertram 
(1883),  it  remains  true  that  in  the  eighth  session  of  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon  (Oct.  26.,  451)  Theodoret  pronounced  «anathema  to  Ne- 
storius  and   to  whoever   does  not  call  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary  the 

1  Migne,  PG.,  lxxxiv.  33—48.  2  Ib.,  lxxxiv.  47 — 54. 

3  Ib.,   lxxxiv.   53 — 64.  4  Ib.,  lxxxiii.   1 1 73  — 1494. 


§    78.      THEODORET    OF    CYRUS.  375 

Mother  of  God  and  divides  into  two  the  only  Son,  the  only-Begotten». 
Thereupon  he  was  solemnly  recognized  as  an  «orthodox  teacher» 
by  all  the  Fathers  of  the  Council1. 

8.  spurious  writings.  —  Seven  dialogues,  De  trinitate  adversus  Anomoeos, 
Macedonianos,  Apollinaristas  (Migne,  PG. ,  xxviii.  1115 — 1338,  among  the 
works  of  St.  Athanasius:  Dialogi  V  de  trinitate  and  Dialogi  II  contra 
Macedonianos)  were  defended  as  genuine  works  of  Theodoret  by  J.  Gamier, 
Dissertatio  de  libris  Theodoreti  App.  (ib.,  lxxxiv.  367 — 394),  but  are  now 
generally  considered  spurious.  According  to  J.  Dräseke  the  first  three  of 
these  seven  dialogues  were  composed  by  Apollinaris  ofLaodicea  (§61,  4); 
this  is  denied  by  G.  Voizin,  in  Revue  d'hist.  eccles.  (1901),  ii.  40 — 55,  who 
refers  them  to  an  unknown  author  of  the  fifth  century.  The  little  work, 
Contra  Nestorium  ad  Sporacium  (ib.,  lxxxiii.  1153 — 1164)  was  recognized 
as  spurious  by  J.  Garnier.  The  17  treatises,  Adversus  varias  propositiones 
i.  e.  against  expressions  of  Cyril  and  his  orthodox  sympathizers  (ib.,  xxviii. 
1337 — 1394,  among  the  works  of  St.  Athanasius  under  the  title:  Confuta- 
tiones  quarumdam  propositionum)  are  probably,  as  Garnerius  suggests, 
the  work  ofEutherius  ofTyana,  a  Nestorian  sympathizer,  deposed  in  431. 
For  the  last  two  and  other  spurious  works  see  Garnier ,  1.  c,  c.  8  (ib., 
lxxxiv.  351 — 362).  The  Quaestiones  et  responsiones  ad  orthodoxos  of  the 
pseudo-Justinus  (cf.  §  17,  6)  were  also  erroneously  attributed  to  Theodoret, 
and  published  as  his  by  A.  Papadopulos-Kerameus ,  St.  Petersburg,  1895; 
cf.  A.  Ehrhard,  in  Byzant.  Zeitschr.  (1897),  vi.  609 — 611. 

9.  complete  editions,  versions.  —  A  complete  edition  of  the  works 
of  Theodoret,  with  a  Latin  version  (B.  Theodoreti  episc.  Cyri  opera  omnia), 
was  brought  out  by  J.  Sirmond,  S.  J.,  Paris,  1642,  4  vols.  An  appendix 
(B.  Theodoreti  episc.  Cyri  auctarium  sive  operum  t.  v)  was  made  by  J.  Gar- 
nier (f  1 681),  Paris,  1684.  This  appendix  contains  among  new  works  and 
fragments  the  following  very  erudite,  but  very  prejudiced  studies :  Historia 
Theodoreti,  De  libris  Theodoreti,  De  fide  Theodoreti,  de  v.  Synodo  gene- 
rali, De  Theodoreti  et  Orientalium  causa.  The  edition  of  Sirmond  (and 
Garnier),  was  reprinted  with  improvements  and  additions  by  J.  L.  Schulze 
(and  J.  A.  Nösselt),  Halle,  1769 — 1774,  5  vols.  [Migne,  PG.,  lxxx — lxxxiv, 
Paris,  i860).  Select  works  of  Theodoret  were  translated  into  German 
by  L.  Küpper ;  Kempten,  1878  (Bibl.  der  Kirchenväter). 

10.  separate  editions  and  recensions.  —  Apologetical  works:  A  se- 
parate edition  of  the  Graecarum  affectionum  curatio  was  brought  out  by 
Th.  Gaisford,  Oxford,  1839.  The  relations  of  the  «Stromata»  of  Clement 
and  of  the  «Praeparatio  evangelica»  to  the  apologetical  writings  of  Theo- 
doret are  illustrated  by  C.  Roos,  De  Theodoreto  Clementis  et  Eusebii  com- 
pilatore  (Diss,  inaug.),  Halle,  1883.  As  to  whether  and  how  far  Theodoret 
intended  his  apology  to  be  a  reply  to  the  three  books  of  Julian,  cf.  J.  R. 
Asmus,  in  Byzant.  Zeitschr.  (1894),  iii.  116 — 145,  and  J.  Raeder,  De  Theo- 
doreti Graecarum  affectionum  curatione  quaestiones  criticae,  Kopenhagen, 
1900;  Id.,  Analecta  Theodoretiana,  in  Rhein.  Museum,  new  series  (1902), 
lxvii.  449 — 459  (on  a  new  codex,  one  of  the  oldest  and  most  important 
for  the  text  of  Theodoret).  —  For  a  Bodleian  Psalm-catena  containing 
unedited  fragments  of  Theodoret  cf.  M.  Faulhaber,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr. 
(1901),  lxxxiii.  218—232.  —  Exegetical  works :  Fr.A.  Specht,  Der  exegetische 
Standpunkt  des  Theodor  von  Mopsuestia  und  Theodoret  von  Kyros  in  der 
Auslegung  messianischer  Weissagungen  aus  ihren  Kommentaren  zu  den 
kleinen   Propheten   dargestellt,   Mimich,    1871.  —  Historical  works:   The 

1  Mansi,  SS.  Cone.  Coll.,  vii.   189. 


376  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

editio  princeps  of  his  Church  History  was  published  by  H.  Valesius,  Paris, 
1673,  et  saepius  (§  62,  7);  the  latest  edition  is  that  of  Th.  Gaisford,  Oxford, 
1854.  A.  Güldenpenning ;  Die  Kirchengeschichte  des  Theodoret  von  Kyr- 
rhos.  Eine  Untersuchung  ihrer  Quellen,  Halle,  1889.  Cf.  G.  tauschen, 
Jahrbb.  der  christl.  Kirche  unter  dem  Kaiser  Theodosius  d.  Gr.,  Freiburg 
i.  Br. ,  1897,  pp.  559 — 563.  —  Homilies  and  Letters:  Too  fxaxapituxaxou 
©soSiop^xou  STuaxo-ou  Kupou  s-iaToAal  ouoTv  osouaaiv  irsvrqxovta  sx.  IlaxjAiaxou 
-/EipOYpacpou  T£u*/ou?  vuv  :rpu>Tüv  tuttoi?  sxotöofJLSvai  utJj  'Icoavvou  ^axxsXiwvoc, 
Athens,   1885. 

11.  works  on  theodoret.  —  Late  studies  of  a  general  character  are: 
Ad.  Bertram,  Theodoreti  episc.  Cyrensis  doctrina  christologica ,  Hildes- 
heim, 1883.  N.  Glubokowski ,  The  Blessed  Theodoret,  bishop  of  Cyrus 
(Russian),  Moscow,  1890,  2  vols.;  cf.  Harnack,  in  Theol.  Literaturzeitung 
(1890),  pp.  502—504. 

12.  DioscuRUS.  —  Under  the  name  of  Uioscurus  (see  no.  1),  the  suc- 
cessor of  Cyril,  who  occupied  the  see  of  Alexandria  from  444  to  45 1  and 
died  in  exile  at  Gangrä  in  Paphlagonia  (Sept.  4.,  454),  there  was  made 
public  and  translated  into  French  by  E.  Amilineau ,  in  the  Monuments 
pour  servir  ä  l'histoire  de  l'Egypte  chretienne  aux  IVe  et  Ve  siecles,  Paris, 
1888  (cf.  §  77,  8),  pp.  92 — 164,  a  Coptic  panegyric  on  Macarius  of  Tkhou. 
This  panegyric  exhibits  a  discourse  on  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  addressed 
to  an  Egyptian  embassy,  charged  with  making  known  to  the  former  patri- 
arch in  his  exile  at  Gangrä  the  death  of  the  aforesaid  Macarius.  It  is 
neither  a  genuine  nor  a  trustworthy  work.  Cf.  F.  Nau,  Histoire  de  Dios- 
core,  patriarche  d'Alexandrie,  ecrite  par  son  disciple  Theophiste,  Syriac 
and  French,  in  Journal  Asiatique,  series  X  (1903),  i.  5 — 108  241 — 310. 
It  has  also  been  edited  from  the  Coptic  by  IV.  E.  Crum ,  in  Proceedings 
of  the  Society  of  Biblical  Archeology  (1903),  xxv.  267  —  276. 

§  7g.    Other  writers  of  the  first  half  of  the  fifth  century. 

I.  MACARIUS  MAGNES,  APOLOGIST.  —  Macarius  Magnes  (i.  e.  of 
Magnesia)  is  the  author  of  an  extensive  apologetic  work,  first  made 
known  by  Blondel,  in  1876,  but  in  a  very  defective  and  incomplete 
manner.  The  work  relates  in  five  books  an  (imaginary)  dispute  of 
five  days'  duration  between  the  author  and  a  pagan  philosopher.  The 
latter  attacks  or  caricatures  certain  passages  of  the  New  Testament, 
especially  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts,  while  the  former  defends  and 
expounds  the  biblical  text,  not  unfrequently  with  far-fetched  refine- 
ment. The  philosopher's  objections  are  mostly  taken  from  the  (lost) 
books  of  the  Neoplatonist  Porphyry  (f  ca.  304)  «Against  the  Christ- 
ians». The  original  title  of  the  «Apology»  was  probably  «Uni- 
genitus,  or  a  reply  to  the  heathens»  :  fwvoyevrjQ  rj  aTroxpizixbg  irpoc, 
'EXX^vao,;  it  is  possible  that  in  the  (lost)  prologue  of  the  work  we 
should  recognize  the  motive  for  the  principal  title.  Intrinsic  evidence 
makes  it  probable  that  the  work  was  composed  after  410.  It  is  al- 
most certain  that  the  author  was  Macarius,  bishop  of  Magnesia  (in 
Caria  or  in  Lydia),  who,  according  to  P/iotius1,  in  403  stood  forth 
at  the   «Synod  of  the  Oak»   (§  74,  4)  as  the  accuser  of  Heraclides, 

1  Bibl.  Cod.  59. 


§  79-     OTHER  WRITERS  OF  THE  FIRST  HALF  OF  THE  FIFTH  CENTURY.       2>7 7 

bishop  of  Ephesus  and  friend  of  Chrysostom.  Under  the  name  of 
the  same  Magnes  are  current  also  some  fragments  of  an  exposition 
of  Genesis. 

Ma/apiou  Ma-j'vrjTo?  'Aitoxpitixos  •?]  Movoysvt^.  Macarii  Magnetis  quae 
supersunt  ex  inedito  codice  edidit  C.  Blondel,  Paris,  1876.  L.  Duchesne, 
De  Macario  Magnete  et  scriptis  eius,  Paris,  1877.  Cf.  Th.  Zahn,  in  Zeit- 
schrift f.  Kirchengesch.  (1877 — 1878),  ii.  450 — 459;  Wagenmann,  in  Jahrb.  f. 
Deutsche  Theol.  (1878),  xxiii.  269 — 314;  C.  J.  Neumann,  Scriptorum  graec. 
qui  christianam  impugnaverunt  religionem  quae  supersunt,  fasc.  Ill,  Leipzig, 
1880,  pp.  14—23  245.  The  Genesis-fragments  are  found  in  Duchesne,  De 
Macario  Magnete,  pp.  39 — 43,  and  mPitra,  Analecta  sacra  et  classica,  Paris, 
1888,  part  1,  pp.  31  —  37.  Additional  fragments  were  published  by  A.  Sauer, 
in  Festschrift  zum  elfhundertjährigen  Jubiläum  des  deutschen  Campo  Santo 
in  Rom,  Freiburg  i.  Br. ,  1897,  pp.  291 — 295.  On  a  quotation  from  Ma- 
carius  (ii.  22)  relative  to  the  presence  of  St.  Peter  at  Rome,  and  taken 
from  a  heathen  writer,  cf.  A.  Harnack,  in  Theol.  Literaturzeitung  (1902), 
pp.  604 — 605.  J.  H.  Bernard,  Macarius  Magnes,  in  Journal  of  Theol. 
Studies  (1901),  ii.  610 — 611.  —  De  sancta  trinitate,  De  effectu  baptismi, 
De  cruce  (Migne,  PG.,  xl.  847—866)  in  the  form  of  dialogues,  were  said 
to  belong  to  Jerome ,  a  priest  of  Jerusalem ,  about  the  end  of  the  fourth 
century,  but  it  appears  that  the  work  from  which  they  are  taken  must  have 
been  written  in  the  eighth  century.  Cf.  P.  Batiffol,  Jerome  de  Jerusalem 
d'apres  un  document  inedit,  in  Revue  des  questions  historiques,  Paris,  1886, 
xxxix.  248 — 255.  The  same  Jerome  is  quoted  in  a  Psalm-catena,  cf.  Ehr- 
hard,  in  Krumbacher,  Gesch.  der  byzant.  Literatur  (2.  ed.),  p.  214. 

2.  CHURCH  HISTORIANS.  —  About  430  the  priest  Philippus  Sidetes 
(of  Side  in  Pamphylia)  published  a  «Christian  History»  (yptaTLavtxrj 
laropiaj,  that  is  described  by  Socrates1  as  a  very  extensive  but 
rambling  work,  and  without  chronological  sequence.  This  work  and 
the  same  author's  reply  to  the  three  books  of  Julian  «Against  the 
Galilaeans»  2  have  been  lost,  with  the  exception  of  a  fragment  and 
some  anonymous  extracts.  A  similar  fate  befell  three  other  ec- 
clesiastical histories  more  or  less  of  the  same  period:  the  Church 
history  (ixxXrjmaaztxr)  laropiar)  of  Hesychius,  a  priest  of  Jerusalem 
(see  no  3),  the  ixxXr^aiaazixTj  lazopia  of  Timotheus,  Apollinarist  bishop 
of  Berytus,  and  the  collection  of  the  acts  of  the  councils  (oovayayij 
Tcov  oDvodixoDv) ,  made  by  Sabinus,  Macedonian  bishop  of  Heraclea  in 
Thrace.  The  work  of  Hesychius  furnished  the  Fathers  of  the  fifth 
General  Council  (553)  with  a  portrait  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia3. 
Timotheus,  according  to  Leontius  of  Byzantium4,  had  no  other  pur- 
pose than  to  glorify  Apollinaris;  with  that  end  in  view  he  collected 
a  multitude  of  letters  between  the  heresiarch  and  his  contemporaries. 
Sabinus  dealt  with  the  Eastern  synods  from  that  of  Nicaea  to  the  time 
of  Valens  (364 — 378);  Socrates5  accuses  him  repeatedly  of  deliberate 
alteration  and  falsification  of  facts  in  the  interest   of  the  Semiarians. 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.   26 — 27;  cf.  Phot.,   Bibl.  Cod.   35. 

2  Socr.,  Hist,  eccl.,  vii.   27.  3  Mansi,  SS.  Cone.   Coll.,  ix.   248 — 249. 
4  Adv.  Nest,  et  Eut.,  iii.  40.  5  Hist,  eccl.,  i.  .8  9;  ii.   15   17,  etc. 


378  SECOND   PERIOD.      FIRST    SECTION. 

The  ecclesiastical  history  (ixxAymaanxrj  itnopia)  of  Philostorgius,  Eu- 
nomian  bishop  in  Cappadocia,  was  more  widely  read  than  the  preceding 
ones,  although  it  was  also,  according  to  Photius1  «less  a  history  than 
an  eulogy  of  the  (Arian)  heretics  and  a  defamatory  onslaught  on  the 
orthodox»;  it  treated  in  twelve  books  the  period  from  the  first 
appearance  of  Arius  to  423.  Photius  made  a  considerable  extract  from 
it,  and  some  small  fragments  also  have  been  preserved 2.  About  the 
middle  of  the  fifth  century  three  other  ecclesiastical  histories  that 
have  reached  us  in  their  entirety  were  produced.  Socrates,  an  advocate 
(ayoXaartxoQ)  of  Constantinople,  announces  formally  that  he  intends 
to  continue  the  Church  History  of  Eusebius  (§  62,  2).  In  the  seven 
books  of  his  Church  History  (exxfajcnaanxr]  laropia)3,  he  treats  the 
period  from  the  abdication  of  Diocletian  (305)  to  439.  His  diction 
is  more  plain  and  simple  than  that  of  Eusebius,  and  he  is  also  more 
sincere  and  upright  in  his  narrative;  in  Socrates  there  is  also  mani- 
fest a  capacity  to  examine  the  sources  of  his  historical  information 
and  to  trace  out  the  relations  of  cause  and  effect  in  the  events  that 
he  relates.  In  the  first  half  of  his  work  he  made  use  of  Eusebius 
and  Rufinus,  also  of  Sabinus  and  the  historico-polemical  writings  of 
St.  Athanasius.  Less  important  is  the  production  of  another  advocate 
of  Constantinople,  Hermias  Sozomenus  Salaminius.  His  work  ßxxfojaia- 
GTLXY]  laropcaj*  is  divided  into  nine  books  and  reaches  from  324  to 
425.  The  frequent  parallelism  of  narrative  in  these  two  writers  had 
always  awakened  a  suspicion  of  literary  dependency  on  one  side :  it 
is  now  ascertained  that  Sozomen  frequently  copies  the  text  of  So- 
crates, though  he  often  consults  the  latter's  authorities  and  then 
enlarges  his  precedessor's  narrative  with  materials  borrowed  directly 
from  them.  Sozomen  also  wrote  a  compendium  of  ecclesiastical 
history5  from  the  Ascension  to  323,  the  year  of  the  overthrow  of 
Licinius,  but  it  has  perished.  For  the  ecclesiastical  history  of  Theo- 
doret  cf.  §  78,  5. 

C.  de  Boor,  Zur  Kenntnis  der  Handschriften  der  griechischen  Kirchen- 
historiker. Codex  Baroccianus  142,  in  Zeitchr.  f.  Kirchengesch.  (1883  to 
1884),  vi.  478 — 494  (a  critical  description  of  the  fourteenth-  or  fifteenth- 
century  Oxford  codex  (Barocc.  142)  that  contains  a  collection  of  extracts 
from  the  Greek  ecclesiastical  historians,  made  probably  in  the  seventh  or 
eighth  century.  This  codex  furnishes  the  extracts  from  Philippus  Sidetes: 
An  extract  on  the  masters  of  the  Alexandrine  schools  is  found  in  H.  Dod- 
well,  Dissertationes  in  Irenaeum,  Oxford,  1689,  p.  488;  several  small  ex- 
tracts and  fragments  of  Papias,  Hegesippus  and  Pierius  are  to  be  seen  in 
de  Boor,  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  (1888),  v  2,  165 — 184.  For  a  frag- 
ment of  Philippus  of  Side  cf.  Neumann,  1.  c.  (see  no.  1),  p.  34.  For  Timo- 
theus  of  Berytus  cf.  §  61,  4.  Fr.  Geppert ,  Die  Quellen  des  Kirchen- 
historikers Sokrates  Scholasticus,  Leipzig,  1898,  in  Studien  zur  Gesch.  der 

1  Bibl.  Cod.   40.  2  Migne,  PG.,   lxv.  459 — 638.  3  Ib.,  lxvii.  29—842. 

4  Ib.,  lxvii.  843 — 1630.  5  Sozom.,  Hist,  eccl.,   i.    1. 


§  79-     OTHER  WRITERS  OF  THE  FIRST  HALF  OF  THE  FIFTH  CENTURY.       379 

Theol.  und  der  Kirche,  iii.  4,  attempted  a  reconstruction  of  the  history  of 
the  Councils  by  Sabinus;  cf.  P.  Batiffol,  in  Byzant.  Zeitschrift  (1898),  vii. 
265  —  284,  and  (1901),  x.  128 — 143.  The  editio  princeps  of  the  fragments 
of  Philostorgius  and  of  Socrates  and  Sozomen  is  due  to  H.  Valesius, 
Paris,  1673  et  saepius;  cf.  §  62,  7.  The  Valesius-Reading  edition  (Cam- 
bridge, 1720)  is  reprinted  in  Migne,  PC,  lxv — lxvii.  A  separate  edition 
of  Socrates  was  brought  out  by  P.  Hussey,  Oxford,  1853,  3  vols.,  and  one 
of  Sozomen  by  the  same,  ib.,  i860,  3  vols.  An  Armenian  version  of  So- 
crates, by  Philo  Tirachazi  (seventh  century),  was  edited  by  M.  Ter.  Mosesean, 
Valarschapat,  1897.  —  L.  Jeep,  Quellenuntersuchungen  zu  den  griechischen 
Kirchenhistorikern,  Leipzig,  1884.  P  Batiffol,  Quaestiones  Philostorgianae 
(Thesis),  Paris,  1891 ;  Jeep ,  Zur  Überlieferung  des  Philostorgius,  Leipzig, 
1898,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  xvii,  new  series,  ii.  3b.  Geppert, 
1.  c.  —  On  June  30.,  446,  Hypatius,  the  spiritual  father  of  all  the  monks 
in  and  around  Constantinople,  died  in  the  monastery  of  Rufinianae  near 
Chalcedon,  at  the  age  of  eighty.  He  was  held  in  high  esteem  by  the 
emperor  Theodosius  II.  and  the  royal  family.  His  eventful  and  highly  bene- 
ficent career  was  described  in  a  plain  and  popular  style  about  447 — 450 
by  his  disciple  and  companion  Callinicus.  The  defective  edition  of  this 
extensive  biography  in  the  Acta  SS.  Jun. ,  Venet.  1743,  iii.  308 — 349,  is 
now  replaced  by  a  complete  edition  published  at  Bonn,  1895,  by  the 
members  of  the  Philological  Seminar  of  that  university. 

3.  EXEGETES.  —  The  monk  and  priest  Adrian,  or  Hadrian,  who 
must  have  lived  about  the  first  half  of  the  fifth  century  and  belonged 
to  the  circle  of  Antiochene  exegetes,  wrote  an  introduction  to  the 
Sacred  Scripture:  elaaycoyrj  dq  rag  ftetaq  ypacpaQ1,  in  which  he  ex- 
plained the  origin  and  meaning  of  the  figurative  expressions  of 
Scripture,  principally  those  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  term  «Intro- 
duction to  Scripture»  appears  for  the  first  time  in  this  work,  and 
indicates  what  was  afterwards  known  as  hermeneutics.  —  The  ex- 
egetical  principles  of  the  Antiochene  school  were  developed  much 
more  clearly  and  definitely  by  St.  Isidore,  priest  and  abbot  of  a 
mountain  monastery  near  Pelusium  in  Egypt  (f  ca.  440).  Though  he 
did  not  compose,  as  far  as  we  know,  any  considerable  exegetical 
work,  the  greater  part  of  his  correspondence,  about  2000  letters  in 
five  books2,  deals  with  exegetical  subjects.  As  a  disciple  of  St.  Chryso- 
stom,  he  follows  the  grammatico-historical  method  of  the  Antiochene 
school,  but  without  rejecting  allegorical  interpretations  when  they 
serve  the  purpose  of  edification.  In  this  copious  collection  of  letters 
there  are  many  that  deal  with  dogmatic  or  ascetico-moral  matters, 
even  with  personal  affairs.  They  illustrate  the  author's  own  principle 
of  unaffected  elegance3  and  are  praised  by  Photius  as  models  of 
epistolary  style4.  Two  treatises  of  Isidore,  casually  mentioned  in  his 
letters,  on  the  non-existence  of  Fate  (loyidiov  rcspc  zoo  /irj  elvat 
slpappeurju)5  and  Against  the  heathens  (Xbyog  xpög  'Ekkyvag)*,  are 
not  really  lost  to  us;    they  are  extant  in   the   long   letter   addressed 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xcviii.   1273 — 1312.  2  Ib.,  lxxviii.   177 — 1646. 

3  Ep.  v.   133.  4  Ep.  ii.  44.  5  Ep.  iii.  253.  6  Ep.  ii.   137  228. 


38O  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

to  the  sophist  Arpocras 1.  —  The  literary  remains  of  the  monk  and 
priest  Hesychius  of  Jerusalem  (f  433)  await  more  thorough  research. 
Much  of  what  has  been  current  under  his  name  belongs  to  writers  of 
the  same  name  that  lived  at  a  later  period.  Other  works,  probably 
written  by  him,  have  perished,  at  least  in  part,  e.  g.  his  ecclesiastical 
history  (see  no.  2),  while  some  of  his  writings  remain  still  unedited. 
In  Migne  he  is  credited  with  a  diffuse  and  allegorical  exposition  of 
Leviticus  extant  in  Latin  versions  only,  with  some  Greek  Psalm- 
fragments,  and  some  scholia  to  Ezechiel,  Daniel,  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
Epistle  of  James,  First  Peter,  Jude 2.  He  is  also  the  reputed  author 
of  a  so-called  azr/rjpov  of  the  twelve  minor  prophets  and  of  Isaias3 
i.  e.  an  analysis  of  the  contents  of  these  books,  with  a  division  of 
the  text  into  arr/ot  or  chapters,  and  a  collection  of  objections  and 
solutions:  oüvayajyy)  aTwptwv  xat  s7itX6(T£üJui,  a  kind  of  harmony  il- 
lustrating by  way  of  question  and  answer  61  Gospel-problems.  Finally, 
there  are  extant  under  his  name  some  homilies  and  fragments  of  ho- 
milies5, a  collection  of  spiritual  maxims  entitled  Directions  for  con- 
flict and  prayer  (avufipyrtxa  xat  sdxrtxdj*,  also  a:  Martyrium  S.  Longini 
centurionis 7.  Besides  new  specimens  of  his  gloss  on  the  minor  pro- 
phets, the  complete  text  of  his  gloss  on  Isaias  has  been  lately 
published  by  Faulhaber.  Hesychius  belongs  to  the  school  of  the 
allegorists. 

Adrian's  zha^o}^  ek  xac  iteta?  -fpacpac,  aus  neu  aufgefundenen  Hand- 
schriften herausgegeben,  übersetzt  und  erläutert  von  Fr.  Gössling,  Berlin, 
1888.  P.  B.  Glueck ,  Isidori  Pelusiotae  summa  doctrinae  moralis,  Würz- 
burg, 1848.  L.  Bober,  De  arte  hermeneutica  S.  Isidori  Pelusiotae,  Cracow, 
1878.  E.  L.  A.  Bouvy ,  De  S.  Isidoro  Pelusiota  libri  iii,  Nimes,  1885. 
See  also  V.  Lundström ,  De  Isidori  Pelusiotae  epistolis  recensendis  prae- 
lusiones,  in  Eranos  (1897),  ii.  68 — 80.  N.  Capo,  De  S.  Isidori  Pelusiotae 
epistularum  locis  ad  antiquitatem  pertinentibus,  in  Bessarione,  vi  (1901 — 1902), 
series  II,  i.  342 — 363 ;  Id.,  De  S.  Isidori  Pelusiotae  epistolarum  recensione 
ac  numero  quaestio,  in  Studi  italiani  di  filologia  (1901),  ix.  449—466; 
cf.  §  40,  4.  C.  H.  Turner,  The  Letters  of  St.  Isidore  of  Pelusium,  in  Journal 
of  Theol.  Studies  (1904),  vi.  70—86.  E.  K.  Lake,  Further  Notes  on  the  Mss. 
of  Isidore  of  Pelusium,  in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1905),  vi.  270 — 282.  — 
For  glosses  of  Hesychius  on  Abdias  and  Zacharias  see  M.  Faulhaber,  Die 
Prophetenkatenen  nach  römischen  Handschriften,  Freiburg  i.  Br.,  1899 
(Biblische  Studien,  iv.  2 — 3),  pp.  21 — 26  32 — 33.  Hesychii  Hierosolymi- 
tani  interpretatio  Isaiae  prophetae,  nunc  primum  in  lucem  edita  a  M.  Faul- 
haber,  Freiburg  i.  Br.,  1900;  Faulhaber,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1901), 
Ixxxiii.  218 — 232,  and  G.  Mercati,  in  Note  di  letteratura  biblica  e  cristiana 
antica  (Studi  e  testi  v),  Rome,  1901,  have  shown  that  the  Psalm-commen- 
tary printed  among  the  works  of  St.  Athanasius  [Migne,  PG.,  xxvii.  649 
to  1344)  belongs  to  Hesychius.  B.  Sargisean,  in  Compte-rendu  du  IVe  Congres 
scientifique    internat.    des    Catholiques    (Freiburg    in    Switzerland,     1898), 

1  Ep.  iii.   154.  2  Migne,  PG.,  xciii.   787 — 1180;   1179 — 1340;   1385 — 1392. 

3  Ib.,  xciii.    1339 — 1386.  4  Ib.,  xciii.    1391  — 1448. 

5  Ib.,  xciii.    1449 — 1480.  6  Ib.,  xciii.    1479 — 1544. 

•7  Ib.,  xciii.    1545 — 1560. 


§79-     OTHER  WRITERS  OF  THE  FIRST  HALF  OF  THE  FIFTH  CENTURY.        38  I 

pp.  216 — 218,    mentions   an  Armenian  version    of  a    commentary  on  Job 
said  to  be  the  work  of  our  Hesychius. 

4.  ASCETIC  WRITERS.  —  A  certain  Palladius,  disciple  of  the  Ori- 
genist  writer  Evagrius  Ponticus  and  later  on  a  bishop  in  Asia  Minor, 
compiled  about  420  a  number  of  monastic  biographies  (yj  rrpbg  Aahao^ 
lavopia  izepdyouaa  ßlouc,  bakov  Ttaripcov)  1,  known  as  Historia  Lausiaca 
( Awximlymv ,  Aauaacxov)  from  the  name  of  Lausus,  a  prominent  official 
to  whom  the  work  was  addressed.  This  Palladius  is  easily  identified 
with  the  biographer  of  Chrysostom  (§  74,  1 8)  and  must  not  be  con- 
founded with  the  contemporary  Palladius,  bishop  of  Helenopolis  in 
Bithynia.  During  two  journeys  he  had  seen  with  his  own  eyes  the 
monastic  life  principally  in  Egypt  and  Palestine,  he  also  probably 
had  access  to  special  works  on  the  subject.  Sozomen2  tells  us  that 
Timotheus,  patriarch  of  Alexandria  (380 — 384),  had  already  published 
a  (lost)  collection  of  monastic  biographies.  The  Historia  Lausiaca 
is  a  reliable  and  valuable  authority  for  the  history  of  primitive 
monachism.  It  was  a  beloved  work  of  edification  in  the  monasteries, 
and  was,  therefore,  often  translated  and  arbitrarily  re-arranged. 
Preuschen  and  Butler  have  shown  that  it  is  possible  to  reconstruct 
the  original  text.  The  usual  text3  is  interpolated  through  the  in- 
corporation with  it  of  a  Greek:  Historia  monachorum  in  Aegypto, 
Preuschen  maintains  that  the  incorporated  text  is  a  Greek  translation 
of  the  Latin :  Historia  monachorum,  of  Rufinus  of  Aquileia,  while 
Butler  concludes  that  the  interwoven  text  is  the  Greek  original  itself, 
translated  into  Latin  by  Rufinus.  —  Prominent  among  the  ascetic 
writers  of  this  period  is  St.  Nilus,  who  resigned  a  high  office  at  the 
imperial  court,  and  with  his  son  Theodulus  took  refuge  with  the 
monks  of  Mount  Sinai  among  whom  he  died  ca.  430.  His  works 
may  be  divided,  apart  from  a  few  fragments,  into  treatises,  letters, 
and  apophthegms 4.  The  treatises  deal  partly  with  the  principal  virtues 
of  the  Christian  life  and  the  contrary  vices:  Peristeria  seu  tractatus 
de  virtutibus  excolendis  et  vitiis  fugiendis,  De  oratione,  De  octo 
spiritibus  malitiae,  De  vitiis  quae  opposita  sunt  virtutibus,  De  diversis 
malignis  cogitationibus,  Sermo  in  effatum  illud  Lk.  xxii.  36;  and  partly 
with  the  monastic  life  in  particular:  Oratio  in  Albianum,  De  monastica 
exercitatione,  De  voluntaria  paupertate,  De  monachorum  praestantia, 
Tractatus  ad  Eulogium  monachum.  The:  Narrationes  de  caede  mon- 
achorum in  monte  Sinai,  treat  of  events  in  the  life  of  the  author, 
his  son  and  the  monks  of  Mount  Sinai.  Other  treatises  are  generally 
considered  spurious ;  but  even  as  regards  the  above-mentioned  there  is 
some  uncertainty  and  confusion.  Of  the  1061  letters  that  Leo  Allatius 
published  (1668)  under  the  name  of  St.  Nilus,  only  a  very  few  can  claim 

1  Ib.,  xxxiv.  995 — 1287:    columns   177 — 208  offer  a  new  text-recension. 

2  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.   29.  3  Migne,  1.  c.  4  Ib.,  lxxix. 


382  SECOND    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

to  be  original  in  their  present  shape ;  all  the  others  are  clearly  extracts 
from  letters  or  other  writings.  —  Marcus,  known  as  Eremita  (juoua%6g, 
äüXY)7r]Q),  was,  according  to  Nicephorus  Callistus  *,  a  contemporary  of 
St.  Isidore  of  Pelusium  and  St.  Nilus,  and  also  a  disciple  of  St.  Chryso- 
stom.  Kunze  says  (1895)  that  he  was  abbot  of  a  monastery  at  Ancyra 
(in  Galatia)  in  the  first  half  of  the  fifth  century  and  withdrew  in  his 
old  age  to  the  desert,  probably  the  desert  of  Juda.  Nicephorus 
says2  that  he  left  at  least  forty  ascetic  treatises  ßoyotj.  There  are 
now  extant  under  his  name  the  ten  following :  De  lege  spiritual^ 
De  his  qui  putant  se  ex  operibus  iustificari,  De  poenitentia,  Responsio 
ad  eos  qui  de  divino  baptismate  dubitabant,  Praecepta  animae  salu- 
taria,  Capitula  de  temperantia,  Disputatio  cum  quodam  causidico, 
Consultatio  intellectus  cum  sua  ipsius  anima,  De  ieiunio,  De  Melchi- 
sedech 3.  Photius  had  already  quoted 4  and  criticized  individually  the 
afore-said  treatises,  with  exception  of  the:  Capitula  de  temperantia; 
the  latter  text  is  not  genuine,  since  it  is  clearly  put  together  from  the 
works  of  Macarius  the  Egyptian  and  Maximus  Confessor.  Papadopulos- 
Kerameus  edited  (1891)  a  work  of  Marcus,  Adversus  Nestorianos. 
The  treatise  De  Melchisedech  is  not  an  ascetical  but  a  dogmatico- 
polemical  work.  —  The  Egyptian  Arsenius  (f  ca.  449)  left  two  dis- 
courses :  Doctrina  et  exhortatio  5,  and :  Ad  nomicum  tentatorem  6 ;  the 
latter  was  discovered  and  published  by  Mai  (1838).  —  Diadochus, 
bishop  of  Photice  in  Epirus,  about  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century, 
left:  Capita  centum  de  perfectione  spirituali7,  and  a:  Sermo  de 
ascensione  D.  N.  Jesu  Christi8,  first  published  by  Mai  (1840). 

All  earlier  works  on  the  Historia  Lausiaca  are  now  superseded  by 
E.  Preuschen,  Palladius  und  Rufmus,  Giessen,  1897,  and  C.  Butler,  The 
Lausiac  History  of  Palladius,  i — ii,  Cambridge,  1898  1904,  in  Texts  and 
Studies,  vi.  1  2.  The  work  of  Preuschen  contains  also  the  text  of  the 
Greek  Historia  monachorum  in  Aegypto  (published  completely  for  the  first 
time)  and  the  most  important  chapters  of  the  Historia  Lausiaca  in  their 
original  form.  C.  H.  Turner,  The  Lausiac  History  of  Palladius,  in  Journal 
of  Theol.  Studies  (1905),  vi.  321 — 355.  On  Nilus  see  Eessler- Jungmann, 
Instit.  Patrol.  (1896),  ii  2,  108 — 128.  J.  Kunze,  Markus  Eremita,  ein  neuer 
Zeuge  für  das  altkirchliche  Taufbekenntnis,  Leipzig,  1895;  Kunze  uses 
an  improved  recension  (pp.  6 — 30)  of  the  Adversus  Nestorianos,  edited  by 
A.  Papadopulos-Kerameus  ('AvaXexxa  isposoXupuTixYJs  ara^uoXo-fiac) ,  St.  Peters- 
burg, 1891,  i.  89 — 113;  apropos  of  the  baptismal  creed  mentioned  in  this 
work  Kunze  has  made  extensive  researches  on  the  life  and  writings  of 
Marcus  Eremita.  Cf.  Kunze,  in  Theol.  Literaturblatt  (1898),  xix.  393 — 398. 
On  Arsenius  cf.  Fessler-  Jungmann,  1.  c,  ii  2,  293  f.,  on  bishop  Diadochus, 
ib.,  147  f.  The  codices  attribute  to  a  Marcus  Diadochus  a  Sermo  contra 
Arianos  [Migne,  PG.,  lxv.  1149 — 1166)  but  the  author  apparently  lived  in 
the  fourth  century  and  is  not  identical  with  the  bishop  of  Photice.    E.  A. 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  xiv.  30  53   54.  2  Ib.,  xiv.   54.  3  Migne,  PG.,  lxv. 

4  Bibl.   Cod.  200.  5  Migne,  PG.,  lxvi.    161 7 — 1622. 

6  Ib.,  lxvi.    1621 — 1626.  7  Ib.,  lxv.   1 167— 1212. 

8  Ib.,  lxv.   1 141  —  1 148. 


§  79-     OTHER  WRITERS  OF  THE  FIRST  HALF  OF  THE  FIFTH  CENTURY.       383 

Wallis  Budge,  The  Book  of  Paradise,  being  the  Histories  and  Sayings  of 
the  Monks  and  Ascetics  of  the  Egyptian  Desert  by  Palladius,  Hieronymus 
and  others.  The  Syriac  Texts,  according  to  the  Recension  of  'Anan-Isho 
of  Beth-'Abhe,  edited  with  an  English  translation,  2  vols.,  London,  1904, 
lxxviii,   1095  and  768  pp. 

5 .  POETS.  —  Evagrius  mentions l  two  Christian  poets  of  the  time 
of  Theodosius  II.  (408 — 450):  Claudianus  and  Cyrus.  Under  the 
name  of  Claudianus  there  are2  seven  Greek  epigrams,  two  of  which 
are  addressed  to  our  Lord,  and  two  fragments  of  a  Greek  Giganto- 
machia.  It  is  generally  believed  that  this  Claudian  is  no  other  than 
the  celebrated  Latin  poet  Claudius  Claudianus  (f  ca.  408)  under  whose 
name  there  are  also  current  some  brief  Latin  poems  of  a  Christian 
character:  De  Salvatore  or  Carmen  paschale,  Laus  Christi,  Miracula 
Christi3.  Claudius  Claudianus  did  certainly  write  also  some  Greek 
poems.  But  it  is  doubtful  whether  his  mind  was  sufficiently  Christian, 
or  rather  sufficiently  de-paganized,  to  permit  us  to  look  on  him  as 
the  author  of  any  Christian  poetry. 

Th.  Birt,  in  the  recent  edition  of  the  Carmina  of  Claudius  Claudianus, 
Berlin,  1892  (Monum.  Germ,  histor.  Auct.  antiquiss.  x)  holds  (Proleg., 
pp.  lxiii — lxviii)  that  the  first  of  the  three  Latin  pieces  (De  Salvatore, 
330 — 331)  is  genuine,  the  other  two  (411 — 413)  spurious  (Proleg.,  pp.  clxx 
to  clxxii),  and  the  two  Christian  epigrams  in  Greek  (421 — 422)  dubious 
(Proleg.,  p.  lxxiv).  Arens  treats  the  De  Salvatore  as  spurious;  cf.  Ed.  Arens, 
Quaestiones  Claudianae  (Diss,  inaug.),  Münster,  1894,  pp.  22 — 42,  and 
Histor.  Jahrb.  (1896),  xvii.  1 — 22.  The  Greek  pieces  attributed  to  Clau- 
dian were  edited  anew,  together  with  the  poems  of  the  empress  Eudocia, 
by  A.  Ludwich,  Leipzig,  1897.  —  Eudocia,  wife  of  Theodosius  II.  (married 
June  7.,  421),  enjoys  the  reputation  of  a  poetess;  we  have  from  her  pen 
one  verse  of  an  encomium  on  Antioch  in  444,  two  verses  of  a  paraphrase 
of  the  Octateuch,  some  long  fragments  of  an  epic  poem  in  three  parts 
on  the  martyrdom  of  St.  Cyprian  of  Antioch  based  on  the  Confessio 
Cypriani  in  prose,  and  other  long  fragments  of  an  f0fjnr)p6x£VTpa  or  Homer- 
Cento,  a  counterpart  to  the  Vergil-Cento  of  Proba.  We  hear  also  of  a 
poem  written  by  Eudocia  on  a  victory  of  Theodosius  II.  over  the  Per- 
sians (422)  and  of  a  paraphrase  of  the  prophets  Daniel  and  Zacharias. 
The  remnants  of  the  epic  on  St.  Cyprian  are  in  Migne,  PG. ,  lxxxv.  831 
to  864.  As  stated  above  all  her  poetic  remains  were  edited  by  A.  Ludwich, 
Leipzig,  1893  1897.  —  For  the  Greek  hymnographers  of  the  fifth  century 
cf.  §  105,   1. 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  i.   19. 

2  Migne,  PL.,  liii.   789,  among  the  works  of  Claudianus  Mamertus. 

3  Ib.,  liii.  788—790. 


384  SECOND    PERIOD.       SECOND    SECTION. 

SECOND  SECTION. 

SYRIAC  WRITERS. 

§  80.    Preliminary  observations. 

It  is  uncertain  whether  there  existed  in  Syria  a  pre-Christian  national 
literature.  The  second  century  saw  the  beginnings  of  a  Christian 
national  literature,  of  the  oldest  monuments  of  which  only  a  few 
remains  survive  (§  18,  3;  19,  3,  etc.).  From  that  time  the  theo- 
logical school  of  Edessa  was  not  only  a  seminary  for  the  Persian 
clergy,  but  also  the  centre  of  all  the  academic  and  literary  activity 
of  Syria.  Its  highest  development  was  reached  in  the  course  of  the 
fourth  century,  when  Ephraem  appears  as  at  once  its  greatest  doctor 
and  the  best  representative  of  its  peculiar  characteristics.  The  school 
of  Edessa  is  intimately  related  to  the  school  of  Antioch  (§  60,  3) ; 
like  the  latter  it  is  devoted  to  the  literal  interpretation  of  the  Scrip- 
tures and  opposed  to  the  allegorizing  method  of  the  Alexandrines. 
The  East-Syrian  school  is  decidedly  Oriental  as  compared  with  the 
West-Syrian  school:  it  is  more  mystic  and  contemplative,  and  pro- 
duced more  poetical  works,  at  the  same  time  it  exhibits  a  lack  of 
speculative  power  and  a  strong  aversion  to  all  change  or  evolution. 
The  Christological  heresies  of  the  fifth  century  inflicted  deep  and 
irreparable  wounds  on  the  Church  of  Syria.  The  last  prop  and 
refuge  of  Nestorianism  within  the  limits  of  the  Roman  empire  was 
the  school  of  Edessa;  it  was,  therefore,  closed  by  the  emperor 
Zeno  in  489.  From  its  ruins  arose,  in  Persia,  the  Nestorian  school 
of  Nisibis.  Monophysitism  found  also  many  sympathizers  in  the 
Syrian  Church ;  the  efforts  of  Justinian  to  suppress  that  heresy  were 
rendered  futile  by  the  tireless  activity  of  the  monk  Jacob  Baradaeus 
(since  541  bishop  of  Edessa,  f  578),  from  whom  the  Syrian  Mono- 
physites  take  the  name  of  Jacobites  From  the  middle  of  the  fifth 
to  the  end  of  the  twelfth  century,  when  the  united  Maronites  (1182) 
began  to  manifest  a  literary  activity,  nearly  all  prominent  Syriac 
writers  are  either  Nestorians  or  Jacobites. 

The  first  satisfactory  introduction  to  the  treasures  of  Syriac  literature 
was  afforded  Western  scholars  by  the  Marionite  J.  S.  Assemani  (f  Jan.  14., 
1768,  at  Rome)  in  his  Bibliotheca  Orientalis:  J.  S.  Assemani,  Bibliotheca 
Orientalis  Clementino-Vaticana,  Tomus  I:  De  Scriptoribus  Syris  Orthodoxis. 
Tomus  II :  De  Script.  Syris  Monophysitis.  Tomi  III  pars  1 :  De  Script. 
Syris  Nestorianis.  Tomus  IV  seu  tomi  III  pars  2 :  De  Syris  Nestorianis, 
Rome,  1719 — 1728,  4  vols.  Graffiti  was  the  first  to  begin  a  complete 
collection  of  the  Syriac  Fathers:  Patrologia  Syriaca  complectens  opera 
omnia  Ss.  patrum,  doctorum  scriptorumque  catholicorum,  quibus  accedunt 
aliorum  acatholicorum  auctorum  scripta  quae  ad  res  ecclesiasticas  pertinent, 
quotquot  syriace  supersunt,  accurante  R.  Graf  fin.  Pars  prima  ab  initiis 
usque  ad  annum  350.    Tomus  I  (Aphraatis  Demonstrationes  i — xxii),  cuius 


§    8l.      APHRAATES.  385 

textum  syriacum  vocalium  signis  instruxit,  latine  vertit,  notis  illustravit 
J.  Parisot,  Paris,  1894.  The  original  texts  of  the  Fathers  and  other  Syriac 
writers,  with  Latin  versions,  are  also  included  in  the  new  collection: 
Corpus  Scriptorum  Christianorum  orientalium  curantibus  J.  B.  Chabot, 
Ign.  Guidi,  H.  Ilyvernat,  B.  Carra  de  Vaux.  The  Conspectus  rei  Syrorum 
litterariae  by  G.  Bickell ,  Münster,  1871,  is  a  very  useful  account  of  the 
printed  Syriac  literature.  A  very  accurate  and  approximatively  complete 
catalogue  of  all  the  printed  editions  of  Syriac  texts  is  found  in  E.  Nestle, 
Syrische  Grammatik,  Berlin,  1888,  ii.  1 — 66.  Sketches  of  the  history  of 
Syriac  literature  were  written  by  W.  Wright,  A  Short  History  of  Syriac  Lite- 
rature, London,  1894;  R.  Duval,  La  litterature  syriaque  (Bibliotheque  de 
l'enseignement  de  l'histoire  ecclesiastique,  Anciennes  litteratures  chretiennes), 
Paris,  1899,  2.  ed.  1900.  —  Patrologia  orientalis,  publiee  sous  la  direction 
de  R.  Graffin  et  F.  Nau,  vol.  ii,  tome  i,  fasc.  1 :  Le  livre  des  mysteres 
du  ciel  et  de  la  terre,  texte  ethiopien,  publie  et  traduit  par  J.  Perruchon 
avec  le  concours  de  j.  Guidi,  xii — 97 ;  fasc.  2 :  History  of  the  Patriarchs 
of  the  Coptic  Church  of  Alexandria  I:  Saint  Mark  to  Theonas  (300). 
Arabic  text  edited,  translated  and  annotated  by  B.  Evett.  Vol.  ii,  tome  ii, 
fasc.  1:  Vie  de  Severe,  par  Zacharie  le  Scholastique ;  texte  syriaque,  publie, 
traduit  et  annote  par  M.  A.  Kugener ;  fasc.  2 :  Les  apocryphes  I :  Les 
evangiles  des  douze  apotres  et  de  Saint  Barthelemy.  Texte  copte,  traduc- 
tion franchise  par  Rivellont,  Paris,   1904. 

§  81.    Aphraates. 

I .  HIS  LIFE.  —  Jacob  Aphraates,  bishop  of  Mar  Matthaeus,  known 
as  «the  Persian  sage»,  is  rightly  called  the  oldest  of  the  Syrian 
Fathers.  As  early  as  1756  Nicolo  Antonelli  published  an  Armenian 
text  and  a  Latin  translation  of  19  homilies  or  tractates  of  «the 
Persian  sage».  Following  the  authority  of  his  manuscripts  Antonelli 
attributed  the  homilies  to  Saint  Jacob  (James)  of  Nisibis,  the  friend 
and  patron  of  Ephraem  (§  82,  1),  and  held  that  they  had  been 
addressed  to  Saint  Gregory  Illuminator,  the  Apostle  of  Armenia 
(§  109,  2).  A  century  later  all  doubt  was  cleared  away  when  in 
1869  W.  Wright  discovered  the  Syriac  original  text  of  23  homilies 
of  «the  Persian  sage».  It  was  then  seen  that  they  were  addressed 
to  a  monk,  possibly  an  abbot,  named  Gregory,  who  had  besought 
the  author  for  spiritual  instruction  in  the  Catholic  faith.  Jacob  is  the 
name  which,  according  to  Syrian  custom,  was  taken  by  Aphraates 
when  he  was  made  bishop.  So  far  as  is  known  Jacob  of  Nisibis  left 
no  writings.  The  date  of  Aphraates'  literary  activity  is  fixed  for  us 
by  his  own  statements:  the  first  ten  homilies  were  composed  in  the 
year  648  of  the  Alexandrian  era  (A.  D.  336 — 337),  the  following- 
twelve  in  655  of  the  same  era  (A.  D.  343 — 344),  and  the  last  homily 
in  656  (A.  D.  345,  August).  Aphraates  was  a  monk,  later  on  a 
bishop  in  the  Persian  monastery  of  Mar  Matthaeus  (=  St.  Matthew), 
somewhat  to  the  east  of  Mosul.  Quite  probably  he  was  even  then 
a  bishop  of  some  importance  in  the  Mesopotamian  hierarchy.  The 
monastery  of  Mar  Matthaeus  became  at  a  later  date  the  see  of  the 
Jacobite  metropolitan  of  Ninive,  next  in  importance  to  the  Maphrian 

Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  25 


386  SECOND   PERIOD.      SECOND   SECTION. 

or  primate  of  the  Oriental  Jacobites.     Since  the  twelfth  century  the 
titular  of  Mar  Matthaeus  is  also  known  as  Maphrian. 

2.  WRITINGS  OF  APHRAATES.  —  With  exception  of  the  last,  the 
above-mentioned  homilies  are  alphabetically  arranged,  in  the  order 
of  the  22  letters  of  the  Syrian  alphabet;  thereby  they  proclaim  them- 
selves a  complete  work.  The  longest  of  them  is  the  last,  entitled 
«the  Cluster»,  i.  e.  the  blessed  cluster  because  of  which  the  vine  is 
not  destroyed  (Is.  lxv.  8).  Aphraates  takes  occasion  of  the  great 
sufferings  of  the  Persian  Christians  (August  345)  in  order  to  encourage 
his  timid  disciple  and  friend.  He  depicts  for  him  the  small  number 
of  the  elect,  and  compares  them  to  the  solitary  cluster  on  the  vine, 
for  whose  sake  the  entire  people,  though  an  ungrateful  vineyard,  are 
spared  by  God,  as  the  history  of  Israel  from  Adam  to  Jesus  Christ 
makes  manifest.  Because  of  its  historical  contents  Gennadius1  called 
it  a  Chronicon.  The  other  homilies  are  entitled :  1.  On  faith.  2.  On 
love.  3.  On  fasts.  4.  On  prayer.  5.  On  wars,  i.  e.  on  the  campaign 
of  Sapor  II.,  king  of  Persia,  against  Constantine  the  Great.  6.  On 
the  monks.  7.  On  penance.  8.  On  the  resurrection  of  the  dead, 
9.  On  humility.  10.  On  the  shepherds  i.  e.  on  the  works  and  duties 
of  the  pastoral  charge.  II.  On  circumcision.  12.  On  Easter.  13.  On 
the  sabbath.  14.  On  admonition,  an  encyclical  letter  composed  by 
Aphraates  at  the  suggestion  of  some  otherwise  unknown  Council, 
possibly  that  of  Seleucia-Ctesiphon  (344)  and  incorporated  with  these 
instructions  to  his  friend.  15.  On  the  distinction  of  foods.  16.  On 
the  (Gentile)  nations  which  have  taken  the  place  of  the  (Jewish) 
people.  17.  On  the  proof  of  the  Divine  Sonship  of  Christ.  18.  Against 
the  Jews  and  on  virginity  and  sanctity.  19.  Against  the  contention 
of  the  Jews  that  they  shall  be  brought  together  again.  20.  On  the 
support  of  the  poor.  21.  On  persecution.  22.  On  death  and  the  last 
things.  —  The  style  of  Aphraates  is  clear  and  simple,  but  rather 
diffuse.  The  philological  value  of  his  writings  is  very  great,  they  are 
of  fundamental  importance  for  Syriac  syntax.  His  diction  is  throughout 
pure  and  original,  uncontaminated  by  foreign  words  or  phrases,  above 
all  free  from  Grecisms.  —  His  Christological  ideas  are  those  of  the 
Nicene  Fathers,  though  his  expression  of  them  is  wanting  in  precision. 
This  is  partly  owing  to  the  practical  and  ascetical  tendency  of  his 
mind,  but  chiefly  to  his  remoteness  from  the  scene  of  Western 
ecclesiastical  difficulties  and  to  his  ignorance  of  the  Arian  contro- 
versies. He  touches  very  often  on  the  sacraments  of  Penance  and 
the  Blessed  Eucharist.  In  his  writings  a  peculiar  theory  quite  common 
among  the  later  Nestorians  of  Syria  frequently  occurs  viz.  that  during 
the  period  from  the  bodily  death  to  the  moment  of  resurrection  the 
soul  is  in  an  unconscious  or  dormant  condition2. 

1  De  viris  ill.,  c.    I.  2  Horn.,  vi.   13;  viii.  8. 


§    82.      ST.    EPHR.EM    SYRUS.  387 

3.  literature.  —  Nie.  Antonelli,  S.  Patris  N.  Iacobi  episc.  Nisibeni 
sermones,  cum  praefatione,  notis  et  dissertatione  de  ascetis,  Rome,  1756. 
W.  Wright,  The  Homilies,  of  Aphraates,  the  Persian  Sage,  edited  from 
Syriac  manuscripts  of  the  fifth  and  sixth  centuries  in  the  British  Museum, 
with  an  English  translation.  Vol.  i:  The  Syriac  text,  London,  1869;  the 
promised  English  version  never  appeared.  —  G.  Bickell  published  a  German 
version  of  the  Homilies  1 — 4  7  12  18  22,  in  Ausgewählte  Schriften  der 
syrischen  Kirchenväter  Aphraates,  Rabulas  und  Isaak  von  Ninive,  Kempten, 
1874  (Bibl.  der  Kirchenväter),  pp.  7  — 151.  All  the  homilies  were  trans- 
lated into  German  by  G.  Bert,  Leipzig,  1888,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen, 
iii.  3—4.  A  new  edition  of  the  Syriac  text,  with  a  Latin  version,  was 
published  by  J.  Parisot,  in  the  Patrologia  Syriaca  I  of  Graffin  (cf.  §  80). 
J.  Parisot,  Aphraates:  Dictionnaire  de  la  Theologie  Catholique,  Paris, 
1903,  i.  1457— 1463.  Cf.  C.  7-  Fr.  Sasse,  Prolegomena  in  Aphraatis  Sa- 
pientis  Persae  sermones  homileticos  (Diss,  inaug.),  Leipzig,  1878.  7-  M. 
Schönfelder ,  Aus  und  über  Aphraates,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1878),  lx. 
195—256  (i.  e.  the  interpretation  of  the  seventy  weeks  and  the  four 
empires  of  Daniel  and  the  Christology  of  Aphraates).  7-  Forget,  De  vita 
et  scriptis  Aphraatis  Sapientis  Persae,  dissertatio  historico-theologica,  Lou- 
vain,  1882.  S.  Funk,  Die  haggadischen  Elemente  in  den  Homilien  des 
Aphraates,  des  persischen  Weisen,  Frankfort,  1891.  E.  Hartwig,  Unter- 
suchungen zur  Syntax  des  Afraates,  I :  Die  Relativpartikel  und  der  Relativ- 
satz (Inaug.-Diss.),  Leipzig,  1893.  H.  Hyvernat,  Aphraates,  in  Catholic  Uni- 
versity Bulletin,  Washington,  1905,  i.  314 — 318.  7-  Labourt,  Le  Christia- 
nisme  et  l'Empire  perse  sous  la  dynastie  Sassanide  (224 — 632),  Paris,  1904. 
Dom  Connolly ,  Aphraates  and  Monasticism,  in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies 
(1905),  vi.  522 — 539.  F.  C.  Burkitt,  Aphraates  and  Monasticism,  a  reply, 
in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1905),  vii.  10 — 15.  Burkilt  treats  of  Aphra- 
ates and  the  Syriac  versions  of  the  Gospels,  pp.  109 — in  180 — 186,  of 
his  edition  of  the  Evangelion  Da  Mepharreshe  (2.  vol.),  Cambridge,  1904. 

4.  papa  of  seleucia.  —  A  pretended  correspondence  of  the  Catholi- 
cus  (patriarch)  Papa  of  Seleucia  (about  266 — 336)  was  edited  in  a  German 
translation  and  minutely  investigated  by  O.  Braun,  in  Zeitschr.  fur  kath. 
Theol.  (1894),  xviii.  163  —  182  546—565. 

§  82.    St.  Ephrsem  Syrus. 

i.  HIS  LIFE.  —  The  most  important  writer  of  the  Syrian  patristic 
age  is  Saint  Ephraem  (Ephraim;  very  probably  pronounced  Afrem 
by  the  Syrians).  Much  of  his  history  is  still  obscure.  The  best 
accessible  authorities,  Syrian  and  Greek  biographies  and  the  con- 
fessions of  the  Saint  (preserved  only  in  Greek),  are  often  mutually 
contradictory,  and  exhibit,  in  part  at  least,  an  undeniable  legendary 
coloring.  He  was  born  at  Nisibis  in  the  reign  of  Constantine,  there- 
fore not  earlier  than  306.  His  parents  were  probably  Christian  and 
trained  him  from  youth  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord.  He  resolved  to 
devote  himself  without  reserve  to  the  divine  service,  and  so  chose 
the  life  of  a  hermit,  dividing  his  time  between  study  and  prayer.  His 
bishop,  Jacob  of  Nisibis,  who  died  probably  in  338,  placed  much 
confidence  in  the  young  man,  and  is  said  to  have  taken  him  to  the 
Council  of  Nicaea,  and  eventually  to  have  made  him  head-master  of 
the  school  of  Nisibis.    The  latter  city  was  besieged  by  Sapor  II.  in 

25* 


388  SECOND   PERIOD.      SECOND   SECTION. 

the  years  338,  346,  and  350  on  which  occasions  Ephrsem  displayed 
a  holy  zeal  as  counsellor  and  instructor  of  his  fellow-citizens.  The 
peace  made  by  the  emperor  Jovinian  in  363  with  the  king  of  Persia 
left  Nisibis  in  the  hands  of  the  latter.  Thereupon,  following  the 
example  of  the  majority  of  the  Christian  inhabitants,  Ephrsem  with- 
drew to  Roman  territory  and  took  up  his  abode  permanently  at 
Edessa,  in  which  city  most  of  his  writings  were  composed.  He 
seems  to  have  led  a  hermit's  life  on  a  mountain  quite  close  to  the 
city,  whither,  however,  his  disciples  followed  him  and  whence  he 
came  occasionally  to  preach  in  the  city  churches.  There  is  grave 
reason  to  doubt  the  story  that  he  visited  Egypt  and  conversed  with 
the  monks  of  that  land.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  certain  that  about 
370  he  travelled  as  far  as  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia,  in  order  to  make 
the  acquaintance  of  Basil  the  Great,  then  famous  throughout  the 
Christian  world;  it  is  said  that  he  received  deacon's  orders  from 
Basil,  though  he  was  probably  never  ordained  to  the  priesthood.  His 
death  took  place  in  373,  probably  on  June  9. 

2.  THE  TRADITION  OF  HIS  WRITINGS.  —  Ephraem  left  after  him 
an  extraordinary  number  of  works.  Several  ancient  writers  assert 
that  he  composed  commentaries  on  the  entire  Scripture.  He  also 
treated  in  metrical  works  a  great  many  points  of  ecclesiastical  doc- 
trine and  discipline.  Sozomen  heard1  that  Ephrsem  had  written 
about  three  hundred  myriads  of  lines:  zptaxoaiac,  juuptddag  incov. 
Even  in  his  lifetime  these  writings  were  looked  on  as  highly  authori- 
tative. The  Syrians  called  him  the  «eloquent  mouth»,  the  «prophet 
of  the  Syrians»,  the  «doctor  of  the  world»,  the  «pillar  of  the  Church», 
the  «lyre  of  the  Holy  Spirit».  Several  of  his  hymns  were  adopted 
into  the  Syrian  liturgies,  Orthodox,  Nestorian,  and  Jacobite.  Com- 
paratively few  specimens  of  his  prose-writings  or  Bible-commentaries 
have  been  saved.  At  a  very  early  date  his  works  were  translated 
into  Greek,  Armenian,  Coptic,  Arabic  and  Ethiopic;  these  versions 
cover  to  some  extent  the  gaps  in  the  Syriac  tradition  of  his  writings, 
a  tradition  that  was  soon  dimmed  by  the  very  splendor  of  his  repu- 
tation. Many  Syriac  texts  are  erroneously  attributed  to  Ephrsem; 
many  others  exhibit  some  genuine  fragments  or  kernels  but  overlaid  by 
later  foreign  material.  This  is  more  particularly  the  case  in  the  very 
numerous  Greek  versions,  prepared  with  a  view  to  the  edification  of 
contemporaries,  for  which  reason  the  translators  enlarged,  abbreviated, 
cut  up  and  re-arranged  the  Syriac  text  as  seemed  most  suitable 
to  them. 

3.  PROSE -WRITINGS  OR  BIBLE-COMMENTARIES.  —  His  commentaries 
on  Scripture  were  written  in  plain  prose ;  his  other  writings,  at  least 
in   the   form   exhibited    by  the  Syriac   original   text,  were  with  very 

1  Hist,  eccl.,  iii.   16. 


§    82.      ST.    EPHRSEM    SYRUS.  389 

few  exceptions  written  in  metre.  The  original  Syriac  of  only  a  few 
commentaries  is  known:  Genesis,  and  Exodus  (to  xxxii.  26).  His 
commentaries  on  the  other  biblical  books  are  known  to  us  only  in 
fragments,  e.  g.  short  introductions  and  disjointed  scholia.  They 
have  been  gathered  from  an  Old  and  New  Testament  Catena  made 
in  851 — 861  by  the  monk  Severus  of  Edessa  out  of  the  works  of 
various  Greek  and  Syriac  writers.  These  fragmentary  comments  refer 
to  Pentateuch,  Josue,  Judges,  Samuel,  Kings,  Job  and  all  the  prophets, 
including  Lamentations.  The  commentaries  on  Ruth,  Paralipomenon, 
Esdras,  Nehemias,  Esther,  the  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Canticle  of  canticles 
and  Ecclesiastes,  seem  to  be  lost  in  the  original  text.  Though 
Ephrsem  is  said  to  have  written  commentaries  on  the  entire  Scripture, 
we  may  well  doubt  whether  this  statement  includes  the  deuterocanonical 
books  of  the  Old  Testament.  Apparently  none  of  Ephraem's  Syriac 
commentaries  on  the  New  Testament  have  reached  us.  There  are 
extant  Armenian  versions  of  his  commentary  on  Paralipomenon,  the 
Diatessaron  of  Tatian  (§  18,  3),  and  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  (in  this 
Armenian  version  no  mention  is  made  of  the  Epistle  to  Philemon); 
on  the  other  hand,  apropos  of  the  commentary  on  Second  Corinthians, 
there  is  added  a  commentary  on  the  apocryphal  correspondence 
between  St.  Paul  and  the  Corinthians.  The  fragments  of  Ephraem's 
commentaries  scattered  through  the  Greek  Catenae  have  not  yet 
been  collected  by  any.  investigator.  —  It  is  well-known  that  the 
N.  T.  text  which  Ephraem  comments  is  not  the  Syriac  version  of  the 
Bible,  known  as  the  Peschittho  (probably  the  equivalent  of  Vulgata) ; 
the  Gospel-text  was  taken  from  the  Diatessaron  of  Tatian.  Ephrsem 
lends  a  willing  ear  to  Jewish  traditions.  It  is  highly  probable, 
however,  that  he  was  ignorant  of  Hebrew  and  also  of  Greek.  He 
does  occasionally  refer  to  the  Hebrew  text,  and  to  the  Septuagint 
version  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  he  was  probably  dependent  for 
his  knowledge  on  marginal  glosses  of  the  Syriac  version  and  on 
help  orally  given  by  competent  scholars.  Ephraem's  method  of 
exposition  is  excellent.  As  a  rule  he  develops  the  ideas  of  the 
Antiochene  school,  particularly  those  of  Theodoret  of  Cyrus.  It  is 
only  rarely  that  he  admits  prophecies  as  directly  Messianic;  on  the 
other  hand,  he  is  very  unreserved  in  his  acceptance  of  typical  pro- 
phecies. His  homilies  and  hymns  are  characterized  by  an  extensive 
use  of  allegorism,  both  in  interpretation  and  application. 

4.  METRICAL  WRITINGS  OR  DISCOURSES  AND  HYMNS.  —  The 
metrical  writings  of  Ephraem  are  extremely  numerous;  they  are 
usually  divided  into  homilies  (Memre,  Mimre)  and  hymns  or  chants 
(Madrasche).  Even  the  homilies  or  discourses  run  into  verse  i.  e. 
equi-syllabic  lines,  most  frequently  the  seven-syllable  line,  usually 
known  as  the  Ephraemic  metre.  In  the  hymns  these  lines  are  dis- 
posed   in    strophes    of  very  unequal    length,    ranging    from    four    to 


390  SECOND   PERIOD.      SECOND   SECTION. 

twelve  verses.  Many  hymns  are  also  acrostichs.  Rhyme  is  rarely 
attempted  and  then  without  attention  to  any  fixed  rules;  usually 
not  even  the  assonance  is  intentional.  Formerly  it  was  believed 
that  Syriac  metre  was  entirely  based  on  the  number  of  syllables. 
However,  H.  Grimme  has  lately  demonstrated  that  it  is  verbal  accent, 
the  quality  of  the  syllable,  that  dominates  all  Syriac  metre,  particularly 
that  of  Ephraem;  likewise,  as  was  already  suspected  by  W.  Meyer, 
that  the  accentuation  of  Byzantine  and  later  Latin  poetry  is  owing 
to  Syriac  metrical  influences.  Ephraem  is  the  greatest  poet  of  Syria. 
The  Syriac  poetry,  however,  is  generally  feeble  and  prolix;  hence 
Ephraem  is  frequently  so  diffuse  as  to  weary  the  reader;  he  also 
repeats  himself  quite  vexatiously.  Certain  of  his  more  delicately- 
worked  poems,  like  the  elegiac  verses  and  the  funeral  chants,  abound 
in  poetical  thoughts  and  suggestions;  he  is  also  particularly  touching 
and  skilful  in  describing  the  felicity  of  divine  faith  and  the  love  of 
God.  In  the  Old  Testament,  however,  as  in  a  garden,  he  finds  the 
loveliest  flowers  of  poetry.  Noldeke  says  with  truth  that  «we  should 
appreciate  more  fully  the  splendor  of  S.  Ephraem  's  verse,  if  we 
could  acquire,  even  approximately,  an  intimate  sense  (ein  lebendiges 
Sprachgefühl)  of  the  language  as  then  spoken  in  Syria».  —  The 
subjects  of  St.  Ephraem's  poetry  are  many,  and  are  generally  identical 
in  both  homilies  and  hymns.  His  moralizing  discourses,  monitory  or 
penitential,  make  up  the  greater  part  of  his  works.  Many  of  them 
seem  to  have  been  designed  for  public  penitential  processions,  whence 
we  may  conclude  that  the  latter  were  an  institution  of  the  Eastern 
churches  long  before  they  were  introduced  in  the  West.  Another 
group  of  his  discourses  and  hymns  is  dogmatico-apologetic  or  dog- 
matico-polemical  in  contents.  They  are  addressed  respectively  to 
heathens,  Jews  and  Manichaeans,  to  Gnostics  (Marcionites ,  Barde- 
sanites),  Novatians,  Arians,  Sabellians,  and  other  kinds  of  heretics. 
He  was  no  doubt  moved  to  this  by  the  fact  that  the  metrical  works 
of  the  earlier  Syrian  Gnostics,  Bardesanes  and  his  son  Harmonius, 
had  helped  greatly  to  disseminate  their  heretical  teachings  through- 
out Syria  (§  25,  6).  In  1865  Overbeck  published  four  poems  (Ma- 
drasche)  of  Ephraem  against  Julian  the  Apostate.  —  Strictly  doctrinal 
poems  are  rare  in  the  works  of  Ephraem;  dogmatic  speculation  is 
foreign  to  his  mind;  he  very  often  speaks  or  sings  of  the  dangers 
consequent  on  an  over-curious  scrutinizing  of  the  mysteries  of  faith. 
Even  in  his  apologetic  and  polemical  poems,  he  is  less  of  a  doctrinaire 
exponent  than  of  an  exhortatory  preacher,  urging  an  acceptance  in 
firm  faith  of  the  ecclesiastical  teaching.  Many  of  discourses  and  hymns 
on  the  feasts  of  our  Lord  and  the  Saints  were  first  made  known 
by  Lamy  (1882 — 1889).  His  praises  of  our  Lord  are  entirely  in 
accordance  with  the  Nicene  faith.  He  insists  strongly  on  the  true 
divinity,    the  perfect  humanity,    and  on  the  uncommingled   union   of 


§    82.      ST.    EPHR^EM    SYRUS.  39I 

the  two  natures.  His  harp  resounds  to  the  praises  of  Mary  more 
frequently  than  that  of  any  other  poet  or  orator  of  Christian  anti- 
quity; he  loves  to  sing  of  her  stainless  virginity,  her  truly  divine 
maternity,  her  freedom  from  sin.  In  a  poem  of  the  year  370  he 
makes  the  Church  of  Edessa  say  to  our  Lord:  Thou  and  Thy 
Mother  are  the  only  ones  who  are  in  every  way  perfectly  beautiful, 
for  in  Thee,  O  Lord,  is  there  no  stain;  no  stain,  also,  in  Thy  Mother!1 
Among  his  hymns  on  the  Saints  we  may  mention  the  verses  in  which 
he  has  immortalized  his  hermit  friends,  Abraham  of  Kidun  and  Julianus 
Saba.  Many  of  his  discourses  are  true  homilies,  being  frequently 
based  on  biblical  texts,  chiefly  those  of  the  Old  Testament.  One 
of  his  poems  deals  in  twelve  books  with  the  history  of  Joseph  in 
Egypt.  The  so-called  Carmina  Nisibena,  edited  by  Bickell  in  1866, 
are  most  probably  a  collection  made  by  Ephrsem  himself  from  his 
own  numerous  hymns.  They  deal  with  events  in  the  siege  of  Edessa 
in  350  and  during  the  Persian  war  (359 — 363)  and  in  the  lives  of 
the  bishop  Jacob  of  Nisibis  and  others. 

5.    THE    ROMAN   EDITION    OF    THE  WORKS    OF  SAINT  EPHR^M.     SUPPLEMENT 

to  the  same.  German  versions.  —  The  publication  of  the  works  of 
St.  Ephraem  has  been  in  progress  since  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century. 
But  there  exists  no  single  complete  edition.  The  best  hitherto  is  the 
Roman  edition  of  1732 — 1746  in  six  folio-volumes,  three  of  which  contain 
Syro-Latin  and  three  Greco-Latin  texts.  It  was  brought  out  by  the 
famous  Maronite  Joseph  Simon  Assemani ,  aided  to  some  extent  by  Peter 
Mobärek  (Petrus  Benedictes) ,  S.  J.,  and  by  Stephen  Evodius  Assemani  (nephew 
of  Joseph  Simon).  The  Syriac  texts  used  in  this  edition  are  taken,  mostly, 
from  manuscripts  found  in  the  monasteries  of  the  Nitrian  desert  in  Egypt ; 
in  these  manuscripts  there  are  several  writings  wrongly  attributed  to 
Ephraem.  The  Latin  version  is  the  work  of  the  two  above-mentioned  col- 
laborators of  Assemani,  it  is  very  paraphrastic  and  in  some  places  unreliable 
and  arbitrary.  The  Greco-Latin  volumes  offer  the  text  of  Greek  manuscripts 
not  older  than  the  tenth  century,  and  reprinted  without  any  critical 
examination;  that  such  a  critical  study  is  necessary  has  been  shown  by 
J.  Gildemeister  in  his  controversy  with  Floss  (§  64,  4).  —  In  the  mean- 
time the  Roman  edition  has  been  variously  supplemented  and  improved.  — 
a)  Bible  Comme7itaries :  Critical  contributions  to  the  text  of  the  commen- 
taries, entire  or  fragmentary,  have  been  made  by  A.  Pohlmann,  S.  Ephrsemi 
Syri  commentariorum  in  Sacram  Scripturam  textus  in  codicibus  Vaticanis 
manuscriptus  et  in  editione  Romana  impressus.  Commentatio  critica,  parts 
1  2,  Brunsberg,  1862 — 1864.  Th.  J.  Lamy }  St.  Ephrasm  Syri  hymni  et 
sermones,  Malines,  1886,  ii.  103 — 310,  published  new  commentaries  and 
fragments  of  commentaries  by  Ephrasm  taken  from  the  Catena  of  Severus ; 
Lamy  also  published,  in  the  Revue  Biblique  (1897),  vi.  380 — 395  535 — 546; 
(1898),  vii.  89 — 97,  a  French  version  of  the  Scholia  on  the  prophet  Zacha- 
rias.  The  Mechitarists  published  at  Venice  1836  (4  vols.)  the  commen- 
taries extant  in  Armenian  only  (see  no.  3).  The  commentary  on  the 
Diatessaron  was  translated  into  Latin  by  J.  B.  Aucher  and  published  in 
this   form   by   G.  Mo  sing  er ,   Venice,    1876    (cf.  §  18,   3).     J.   P.   Harris 

1  Carm.  Nisib.,  n.   27,  ed.  Bickell  40. 


392  SECOND   PERIOD.      SECOND   SECTION. 

published  some  Syriac  fragments  of  the  commentary  on  the  Diatessaron, 
London,  1895;  cf.  J.  H.  Hill,  A  dissertation  on  the  Gospel  commentary 
of  S.  Ephraem  the  Syrian,  Edinburgh,  1896.  The  Mechitarists  have  also 
made  a  Latin  version  of  the  commentary  on  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul: 
S.  Ephraem  Syri  commentarii  in  epistolas  D.  Pauli,  nunc  primum  ex 
Armeno  in  Latinum  sermonem  a  patribus  Mekitharistis  translati,  Venice, 
1893.  The  commentary  on  the  apocryphal  correspondence  between  St.  Paul 
and  the  Corinthians,  translated  from  Armenian  into  German,  was  edited 
by  P.  Vetter,  Der  apokryphe  dritte  Korintherbrief,  Vienna,  1894,  pp.  70 
to  79.  An  Armenian  «Commentary  on  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  compiled 
from  the  works  of  the  ancient  fathers  Chrysostom  and  Ephraem«  was 
published  at  Venice,  1839.  In  Pohlmann  the  reader  will  find  an  Arabic 
fragment  of  a  commentary  on  Genesis  and  Exodus,  bearing  the  name  of 
Ephraem  (1.  c,  i.  27  ff.).  —  b)  Discourses  and  hymns:  Apart  from  minor 
editions,  new  discourses  and  hymns  have  been  published  by  Overbeck,  Bickell 
and  Lamy :  S.  Ephraemi  Syri,  Rabulae  episc.  Edesseni,  Balaei  aliorumque 
opera  selecta.  Primus  edidit  J.  J.  Overbeck,  Oxford,  1865;  he  gives  only 
the  Syriac  text ;  the  promised  Latin  version  never  appeared.  In  the  Zeitschr. 
f.  kath.  Theol.  (1878),  ii.  335  —  356,  G.  Bickell,  published  a  version  of  the 
poems  (3  —  20)  against  Julian  the  Apostate.  The  tractate  against  the 
Manichaeans  (59 — 73)  was  edited  and  translated  into  German  by  K.  Kessler, 
in  Mani,  Berlin,  1889,  i.  262 — 302.  The  letter  to  the  «Brethren  of  the 
mountain»  (the  anchorites  near  Edessa,  113 — 131)  was  translated  by 
C.  Kayser,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  kirchl.  Wissenschaft  und  kirchl.  Leben  (1884), 
v.  251 — 266.  S.  Ephraemi  Syri  Carmina  Nisibena,  additis  prolegomenis 
et  supplemento  lexicorum  syriacorum.  Primus  edidit,  vertit,  explicavit 
G.  Bickell,  Leipzig.  1866;  Bickell  added  some  Corrigenda  in  his  Conspectus 
rei  Syr.  litt.,  Münster,  1871,  pp.  28 — 34.  S.  Ephraem  Syri  hymni  et  ser- 
mones.  Edidit,  latinitate  donavit,  varus  lectionibus  instruxit,  notis  et  pro- 
legomenis illustravit  Th.  J.  Lamy,  Malines,  1882 — 1889,  3  vols.;  cf.  the 
review  of  the  first  two  volumes  of  this  work  by  Th.  Nöldeke,  in  Gott. 
Gel.  Anzeigen  (Nov.  29.,  1882),  pp.  1505 — 15 14  (and  Febr.  1.,  1887), 
pp.  81 — 87.  In  1902  appeared  a  fourth  volume  of  the  work  of  Lamy, 
containing  new  hymns  and  discourses  from  manuscripts  of  Mount  Sinai, 
Mossul,  the  Vatican  and  the  British  Museum.  %  Guidi ,  La  traduzione 
copta  di  un'  omelia  di  Efrem  (resembles  the  Greek  text  of  the  Roman 
edition,  iii.  385),  in  Bessarione  (1902 — 1903),  vii.  series  II,  iv.  1 — 21. 
Five  of  the  fifteen  hymns  addressed  to  Abraham  of  Kidun  [Lamy,  iii.  749 
to  836)  had  been  already  translated  into  German  by  P.  Martin,  in  Zeit- 
schrift f.  kath.  Theol.  (1880),  iv.  426 — 437.  The  hymn  on  the  Maccabee 
brethren  {Lamy,  iii.  685 — 696)  was  re-edited  in  Syriac  and  English  by 
Bensly- Barnes,  The  fourth  Book  of  Maccabees,  Cambridge,  1890,  pp.  117 
to  124,  xliv — xlviii.  S.  Ephraemi  carmina  rogationum  primus  ed.  vertitque 
latine  Ign.  Ephr.  Rahmani,  in  Bessarione  (1903),  vii.  165 — 185;  (1903  to 
1904),  viii.  1 — 13.  The  poem  on  Joseph  in  Egypt  hitherto  known  only 
in  fragments  was  published  completely  by  Bedjan,  St.  Ephrem.  Histoire 
complete  de  Joseph.  Poeme  en  12  livres,  2.  ed.,  Paris,  1891 ;  the  last 
two  books  are  now  to  be  found,  in  Syriac  and  Latin,  in  the  fourth  volume 
of  Lamy.  A  homily  on  the  pilgrim  life  was  edited  in  Syriac  and  German 
by  A.  Haffner,  Vienna,  1896.  C.  P.  Caspari  published  (in  Briefe,  Ab- 
handlungen und  Predigten  aus  den  zwei  letzten  Jahrhunderten  des  kirch- 
lichen Altertums  und  dem  Anfang  des  Mittelalters,  Christiania,  1890, 
pp.  208 — 220)  a  very  remarkable  and  interesting  (Latin)  sermon  on  Anti- 
christ and  the  end  of  the  world,  attributed  to  Ephraem  Syrus  and  Isidore 
of  Seville.     Caspari  is  of  opinion  (1.  c,  pp.  429  ff.)   that  the   sermon  was 


§    83.      LATER   WRITERS.  393 

not  written  before  the  year  600,  while  IV.  Bousset ,  Der  Antichrist,  Göt- 
tingen, 1895,  pp.  21  ff. ,  thinks  it  was  composed  in  Greek  about  373. 
Duncan  Jones,  A  Homily  of  St.  Ephrem,  in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies 
(1904),  v.  546 — 552.  —  Great  praise  is  due  to  P.  Zingerle  for  his  German 
versions  of  the  writings  of  Ephraem.  Apart  from  some  minor  publications 
he  has  edited  two  large  collections:  Ausgewählte  Schriften  des  heiligen 
Kirchenvaters  Ephräm,  aus  dem  Griechischen  und  Syrischen  übersetzt, 
Innsbruck,  1830 — 1838,  6  vols.  \  a  new  edition  appeared  in  1845 — 1846, 
in  which  volumes  4  and  5,  entitled:  «The  Holy  Muse  of  the  Syrians» 
and  «Hymns  against  the  hair-splitters  of  the  divine  mysteries»  present 
(German)  metrical  versions  of  the  text  of  Ephraim.  Ausgewählte  Schriften 
des  hl.  Ephräm  von  Syrien,  aus  dem  Syrischen  und  Griechischen  über- 
setzt, Kempten,  1870 — 1876,  3  vols.  (Bibl.  der  Kirchenväter).  C.  Macke, 
Hymnen  aus  dem  Zweiströmeland.  Dichtungen  des  hl.  Ephrem  des  Syrers, 
aus  dem  syrischen  Urtext  metrisch  ins  Deutsche  übertragen  und  mit  er- 
klärenden Anmerkungen  versehen,  Mainz,  1882.  —  A  French  version  of 
the  «Testament»  of  Ephrsem  was  published  by  Lamy,  in  Compte  rendu 
du  IVe  Congres  scientifique  international  des  Catholiques,  Sect.  I  (Frei- 
burg, 1898),  pp.  173 — 209.  R.  Duval,  Le  testament  de  St.  Ephrem,  in 
Journal  Asiatique,  new  series  (1901),  xviii.  234 — 419.  A  new  recension 
of  this  text  is  found  in  P.  Bedjan ,  Thomas  von  Marga:  Liber  superio- 
rum  etc.,  Paris  and  Leipzig,  1901.  E.  Bouvy,  Les  sources  historiques  de 
la  vie  de  St.  Ephrem,  in  Revue  Augustinierme,  1903,  fevr.,  pp.  155 — 164. 
6.  works  concerning  st.  ephr^em.  —  Ca  Lengerke ,  Commentatio 
critica  de  Ephraemo  Syro  S.  Scripturae  interprete,  Halle,  1828;  De 
Ephraemi  Syri  arte  hermeneutica,  Königsberg,  1831.  A.  Haase,  S.  Ephraemi 
Syri  theologia,  quantum  ex  libris  poeticis  cognosci  potest,  explicatur  (Diss, 
inaug.),  Halle,  1869.  P.  de  Lagarde,  Über  den  Hebräer  Ephraims  von 
Edessa  (i.  e.  on  the  interpretation  of  Gen.  i— xxxviii  referred  by  Ephrsem 
to  a  certain  «Hebraeus»),  in  Orientalia,  Göttingen,  1880,  ii.  Th.  J.  Lamy, 
Etudes  de  patrologie  Orientale:  Saint  Ephrem,  in  l'Universite  Catholique, 
new  series  (1890),  iii.  321 — 349;  (1890),  iv.  161 — 190.  Lamy,  L'exegese 
en  Orient  au  IVe  siecle  ou  les  commentaires  de  St.  Ephrem,  in  Revue 
Biblique  (1893),  ii.  5 — 25  161 — 181  465 — 486.  Le  Camus,  Saint  Ephraim. 
Dictionnaire  de  la  Bible,  Paris,  1899,  "•  x^^9 — J 891.  F.  C  Burkitt, 
S.  Ephraim's  Quotations  from  the  Gospel  collected  and  arranged,  in  Texts 
and  Studies,  Cambridge,  1901 ,  vii.  2,  an  important  study  for  the  sepa- 
ration of  the  genuine  from  the  spurious  in  the  manuscripts  of  the  Ephrsemic 
writings,  and  for  the  conclusion  that  the  Peschittho  of  the  New  Testament 
is  posterior  to  Ephrsem  and  the  works  of  Rabbulas  of  Edessa  (§  S^,  4). 
Burkitt  returns  to  this  subject  in  his  edition  of  the  Evangelion  Da  Mephar- 
reshe,  Cambridge,  1904,  ii.  112 — 149.  C.  Eirainer,  Der  hl.  Ephräm  der 
Syrer.  Eine  dogmengeschichtliche  Abhandlung,  Kempten,  1889.  H.  Grimme, 
Der  Strophenbau  in  den  Gedichten  Ephräms  des  Syrers,  Freiburg  in  Switzer- 
land, 1893.  Cf.  Grimme,  Grundzüge  der  Syrischen  Betonungs-  und  Vers- 
lehre, in  Zeitschr.  der  deutschen  morgenländischen  Gesellschaft  (1893), 
xlvii.  276 — 307.  Dom  Connolly,  St.  Ephraim  and  Eucratisus,  in  Journal  of 
Theological  Studies  (1906),  viii.  41 — 48. 

§  83.    Later  writers. 

I.  ACTS  OF  THE  MARTYRS.  —  Several  fourth-century  Acts  of  Syrian 
martyrs  have  reached  us,  notably  of  the  martyrs  under  Diocletian, 
Licinius  and  Sapor  II.  of  Persia.  Wright  published  (1865 — 1866)  a 
Syriac  martyrology  of  the  year  411,    at   once   the  most  ancient  and 


394 


SECOND    PERIOD.      SECOND    SECTION. 


the  most  precious  of  all  known  martyrologies.  In  its  first  part  it  is 
dependent  on  a  still  older  Greek  source  now  lost.  About  410  Ma- 
ruthas,  bishop  of  Maipherkat,  collected  the  acts  of  the  martyrs  under 
Sapor  II.,  and  wrote  a  history  of  the  Nicene  Council. 

W.  Wrights  edition  (with  English  version)  of  the  above-mentioned 
martyrology  was  published  in  the  Journal  of  Sacred  Literature,  Oct.  1865 
to  Jan.  1866.  For  the  Syriac  text  with  a  Latin  version  and  a  commentary 
cf.  G.  B.  de  Rossi  and  L.  Duchesne ,  in  Acta  SS.  Nov.  ii.  1  (Brussels, 
1894),  1 — lxix.  Cf.  H.  Achelis,  Die  Martyrologien,  Berlin,  1900,  pp.  30 — 71. 
A  school-edition  was  published  by  H.  Lietzmann,  Die  drei  ältesten  Martyro- 
logien, Bonn,  1903.  The  collection  of  Acts  of  the  martyrs  by  bishop 
Maruthas  was  first  brought  out  by  S.  E.  Assemani,  Acta  Ss.  Marty  rum 
orientalium  et  occidentalium ,  Rome,  1748,  2  vols.  The  Syriac  text  is 
found  in  P.  Bedjan,  Acta  martyrum  et  sanctorum,  Paris,  1891,  ii.  57 — 396; 
on  his  history  of  the  Nicene  Council  cf.  O.  Braun,  De  S.  Nicaena  synodo, 
Münster,  1898,  in  Kirchengeschichtl.  Studien,  iv.  3.  Cf.  Harnack,  Der 
Ketzerkatalog  des  Bischofs  Maruta  von  Maipherkat,  Leipzig,  1899,  m  Texte 
und  Untersuchungen  xix,  new  series  iv.  ib.  The  work  of  P.  Bedjan,  Acta 
martyrum  et  sanctorum  (Syriac  acts  of  martyrs  and  lives  of  saints,  un- 
translated) has  already  reached  its  seventh  volume,  Paris,  1890— 1897; 
cf.  E.  Nestle,  in  Theol.  Literaturzeitung,  1893,  pp.  3 — 6  45 — 48  (on 
vols,  i— iii);  1895,  pp.213— 215  3I2~ 3X5  (on  vols-  iv~ vh  l896>  PP-  419 
to  421  (on  vol.  vi). 

2.  CYRILLONAS.  —  The  name  of  this  writer  has  reached  us  only 
through  six  Carmina  composed  by  him  and  preserved  in  a  sixth- 
century  manuscript  of  the  British  Museum.  Bickell,  their  editor  and 
translator,  entitled  them :  A  prayer  for  All  Saints'  feast  of  396,  con- 
cerning the  plague  of  locusts  and  other  afflictions,  especially  the 
invasions  of  the  Huns;  Hymn  on  the  conversion  of  Zachaeus;  Hymn 
on  the  washing  of  feet;  two  Hymns  on  the  Pascha  Christi;  a  Carmen 
on  wheat.  Bickell  says  that  after  Ephraem  this  writer  is  the  greatest 
of  the  Syriac  poets. 

G.  Bickell  published  the  Syriac  text,  in  Zeitschr.  der  deutschen  morgen- 
ländischen Gesellschaft  (1873),  xxvii.  566 — 598;  with  corrections,  ib.  (1881), 
xxxv.  531 — 532;  he  had  already  translated  the  six  hymns  into  German, 
in  Ausgewählte  Gedichte  der  syrischen  Kirchenväter  Cyrillonas,  Baläus, 
Issak  von  Antiochien  und  Jakob  von  Sarug,  Kempten,  1872,  pp.  7 — 63, 
in  Ausgewählte  Schriften  der  syrischen  Kirchenväter  Aphraates,  Rabulas 
und  Isaak  von  Ninive,  Kempten,  1874,  he  added  (pp.  410— 411)  some  notes 
on  Cyrillonas,  and  (pp.  414 — 421)  metrical  excerpts  from  the  writings  of 
Cyrillonas. 

3.  BAL^US.  —  Less  attractive  than  the  works  of  the  foregoing 
writer,  but  very  important  from  a  dogmatico-historical  point  of  view 
are  the  writings  of  the  chorepiscopus  or  rural  bishop  Balaeus  (Balaj) 
edited  by  Overbeck  (1865).  The  time  and  place  of  his  labors  are 
known  with  some  certainty;  thus  he  composed  five  panegyrical 
hymns  on  Asacius,  bishop  of  Aleppo  or  Beroea  (§  74,  17)  whom 
he   calls    «our   father»    and   who   died    in  432.    The   longest   of  his 


§    83.     LATER   WRITERS.  395 

poems  is  one  on  the  history  of  Joseph  in  Egypt,  written  in  seven- 
syllable  verse;  it  is,  however,  attributed  by  others  to  St.  Ephraem 
(§  82,  4).  Most  of  his  genuine  metrical  writings  are  in  five-syllable 
verse,  known  as  the  Balaeus-metre.  His  writings  abound  in  evidences 
of  ecclesiastical  doctrine,  notably  concerning  the  Blessed  Eucharist 
and  the  veneration  and  invocation  of  the  Saints. 

J.  J.  Overbeck,  S.  Ephraemi  Syri,  Rabulae  episc.  Edesseni,  Balaei  alio- 
rumque  opera  selecta,  Oxford,  1865,  pp.  251 — 336  (untranslated).  A  se- 
lection of  the  Syriac  works  of  Balseus  was  published  in  a  German  version 
by  G.  Bickell,  Ausgewählte  Gedichte  etc.,  pp.  65 — 108;  cf.  Bickell,  Aus- 
gewählte Schriften  etc.,  pp.  421 — 422.  The  Syriac  original  of  a  carmen 
De  Faustino  et  de  Metrodora  (Mattidia)  tribusque  eius  filiis,  based  on  the 
story  in  the  Clementine  Recognitions  (§  26,  3)  and  lacking  in  Overbeck's 
edition,  was  published  by  Bickell,  in-Zeitschr.  der  deutschen  morgenländ. 
Gesellschaft  (1873),  xxvii.  599 — 600,  in  Latin  in  Conspectus  rei  Syr.  litt. 
46,  n.  5.  —  K.  V.  Zettensteen,  Beiträge  zur  Kenntnis  der  religiösen  Dich- 
tung Baiais,  nach  den  syrischen  Handschriften  des  Britischen  Museums, 
der  Bibliotheque  nationale  in  Paris  und  der  königl.  Bibliothek  zu  Berlin. 
The  poem  on  the  history  of  Joseph,  known  to  Overbeck  only  in  fragments 
(270 — 230),  was  published  entire  by  Bedjan  under  the  name  of  Ephraem 
(§  82,  5). 

4.  RABBULAS  OF  EDESSA.  —  Rabbulas  wrote  also  in  metre,  but  his 
extant  works  are  mostly  in  prose.  His  life  is  known  to  us  in  some 
detail  and  from  rather  trustworthy  accounts.  At  the  death  of  Dio- 
genes, bishop  of  Edessa,  in  412,  Rabbulas  was  chosen  his  successor, 
and  retained  this  office  till  his  death  (Aug.  7.  or  8.,  435).  He  was 
prominent  in  the  Nestorian  controversies,  and  at  the  Council  of 
Ephesus  took  sides  with  the  Antiochene  party  (§  77,  2),  but  some 
time  during  the  winter  of  431  to  432  he  withdrew  from  Nestorius, 
adhered  to  Cyril  and  thenceforth  was  very  active  in  bringing  about 
a  reconciliation  between  the  latter  and  the  Antiochenes.  He  translated 
into  Syriac  also  the  Greek  text  of  Cyril's  De  recta  fide  ad  Impera- 
tor em  (§  77,  4),  and  was  especially  active  in  the  suppression  of  the 
writings  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia.  Overbeck  edited  the  greater 
part  of  his  extant  works;  they  deal  with  the  discipline  of  the  clergy 
and  religious  men  and  women,  or  are  hymns  written  for  the  liturgy 
and  the  divine  office  (partly  translations  from  the  Greek) ;  one  sermon 
and  some  fragments  of  letters  are  also  attributed  to  him.  Though 
his  other  writings  are  in  Syriac,  the  letters  are  written  in  Greek;  in 
a  panegyric  on  Rabbulas  delivered  at  Edessa  soon  after  435,  mention 
is  made  of  a  collection  of  these  letters,  46  in  number.  It  is  a  matter 
of  regret  that  only  fragments  of  them,  in  Syriac  and  Latin,  have 
reached  us. 

The  Syriac  works  or  fragments  of  Rabbulas  are  found  in  Overbeck,  1.  c, 
pp.  210 — 248  362 — 378,  the  panegyric  is  published  ib.,  pp.  159 — 209. 
The  Syriac  version  of  the  De  recta  fide  of  Cyril,  not  found  in  Overbeck, 
was   published   by  Ph.  Ed.  Pusey ,   Oxford,    1877    (§■  77»  9)-     In   ms  Aus- 


396  SECOND   PERIOD.      SECOND   SECTION. 

gewählte  Schriften  etc.  Bickell  translated  (pp.  153 — 271)  all  the  texts  edited 
by  Overbeck  with  the  exception  of  a  few  hymns;  he  also  added  Latin 
fragments  to  the  Syriac  remnants  of  the  correspondence  of  Rabbulas,  and 
published,  moreover,  an  account  of  the  conversion  of  Rabbulas,  taken  from 
a  life  of  St.  Alexander,  founder  of  the  Acoimetae  (f  ca.  430),  and  written 
about  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century.  We  have  already  said  (§  82,  6) 
that  Burkitt  interprets  the  statement  of  the  biographer  of  Rabbulas  [Over- 
beck,  1.  c,  p.  172)  that  the  latter  translated  the  New  Testament  into  Syriac 
as  meaning  that  he  is  the  author  of  the  Peschittho  version  of  the  New 
Testament. 

5 .  ST.  ISAAC  OF  ANTIOCH.  —  The  literary  legacy  of  Isaac  of  Antioch, 
known  also  as  Isaac  the  Great,  is  much  more  extensive,  likewise 
more  poetical  in  form.  The  details  of  his  life  are  not  known  to  us 
with  sufficient  certainty.  He  was  probably  born  at  Amida  in  Meso- 
potamia in  the  second  half  of  the  fourth  century,  but  came  in  early 
youth  to  Edessa  where  he  received  instruction  from  a  certain  Zenobius, 
a  disciple  of  Ephrsem.  He  travelled  much,  and  even  visited  Rome, 
after  which  he  took  up  his  residence  at  Antioch;  Gennadius  calls 
him 1  presbyter  Antiochenae  ecclesiae,  while  Syriac  texts  declare  him 
an  abbot  of  a  monastery  in  the  vicinity  of  Antioch.  He  died  at  an 
advanced  age  between  459  and  461.  Zingerle  was  the  first  to  make 
known  some  interesting  pages  from  Isaac  of  Antioch;  we  owe  to 
Bickell  a  complete  edition  of  his  writings.  Most  of  them  are  in  seven- 
syllable  metre,  some  have  reached  us  only  in  an  Arabic  version. 
By  far  the  greater  part  of  his  works  are  ascetico-moral  in  character, 
exhortations  to  a  life  of  virtue  or  reprobations  of  sin  and  vice; 
very  often  they  are  addressed  directly  to  his  fellow-monks.  There 
are,  however,  some  Carmina  devoted  to  a  very  minute  defence  of 
articles  of  faith,  especially  the  Trinity,  the  Incarnation,  and  free  will. 
Others  are  found  to  be  most  valuable  because  of  their  incidental 
references  to  the  contemporary  wars  with  the  Huns,  the  Arabs,  and 
the  Persians.  There  does  not  seem  to  be  any  reason  to  doubt  his 
orthodoxy;  two  hymns,  in  which  it  is  asserted  that  in  Christ  there  is 
only  one  nature,  were  probably  interpolated  by  Monophysite  copyists. 
The  following  judgment  of  Bickell,  quite  in  accord  with  that  of  Zingerle, 
applies  to  the  literary  merits  of  Isaac:  «Apart  from  a  few  passages 
in  which  the  sublimity  of  the  subject-matter  and  personal  inspiration 
lend  to  his  speech  a  certain  higher  flight,  he  remains  always  languid, 
verbose  and  tedious.  He  is  capable  of  so  attaching  himself  to  a 
given  subject  that  he  dwells  upon  it  at  great  length  and  with  the 
most  wearisome  tautology.  It  would  seem  at  times  as  if  he  purposely 
avoided  the  pleasing  and  agreeable  side  of  his  theme  in  order  to 
pursue  some  subordinate  line  of  singular  and  bizarre  thoughts.» 

S.  Isaaci  Antiocheni,  Doctoris  Syrorum,  opera  omnia  ex  omnibus, 
quotquot  exstant,    codicibus  manuscriptis  cum  varia  lectione  syriace  arabi- 

1  De  viris  ill,,   c.  66. 


§   84.      GENERAL   CONSPECTUS.  397 

ceque  primus  edidit,  latine  vertit,  prolegomenis  et  glossario  auxit  G.  Bickell, 
Giessen,  part  I,  1873;  part  II,  1877;  these  two  volumes  contain  37  hymns, 
or  fragments  of  hymns,  in  Syriac  and  Latin.  Six  of  them :  De  fide  et  in- 
carnatione  Domini  (1),  De  fide  (6),  De  potestate  diaboli  in  homine  ten- 
tando  (10),  De  s.  ieiunio  quadragesimali  (13),  De  ieiunio  (14),  De  vigiliis 
Antiochenis  et  de  eo  quod  bonum  est  confiteri  Domino  (15),  were  already 
known  in  a  German  version  by  Bickell,  in  his  Ausgewählte  Gedichte,  pp.  109 
to  191;  cf.  Ausgewählte  Schriften,  pp.  411 — 412  422 — 424.  P.  Zingerle 
published  the  Syriac  text  of  the  hymns  De  amore  doctrinae  (Monumenta 
Syriaca,  Innsbruck,  1869,  i.  13 — 20)  and  De  pueris  defunctis  (Chrestomathia 
Syriaca,  Rome,  187 1,  pp.  387—394),  also  extracts  from  the  De  crucifixione, 
De  perfectione  fratrum,  De  Adam  et  Eva,  De  Abelo  et  Caino  (Chrestom. 
Syr.  pp.  299 — 306  395 — 416).  He  made  known,  also  in  a  German  version, 
extracts  from  six  hymns  on  the  Crucifixion,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1870), 
lii.  92 — 114.  All  the  texts  published  by  Zingerle  have  not  been  published 
in  the  Bickell  editions.  Some  poems  of  Isaac  were  wrongly  attributed  to 
St.  Ephraam  in  the  Roman  edition  of  his  works  (§  82,  5).  Isaac,  syrus 
antiochenus.  Homiliae  ed.  P.  Bedjan  (Syriac),  Leipzig,  1903,  i.  M.  Besson, 
Un  recueil  de  sentences  attribue  ä  Isaac  le  Syrien,  in  Oriens  Christianus 
(190 1 — 1902),  i.  288 — 298.  Our  Isaac  must  not  be  confounded  with  Isaac, 
bishop  of  Ninive  and  anchorite  in  the  seventh  century,  author  of  several 
ascetical  sermons  preserved  in  the  original  Syriac  and  in  Greek  and  Latin 
versions  (Migne ,  PG. ,  lxxxvi  1,  811 — 886),  also  in  an  unreliable  Arabic 
version,  and  an  Ethiopic  version  derived  from  the  same.  —  For  Isaac  of 
Ninive  cf.  J-.  B.  Chabot ,  De  S.  Isaaci  Ninivitae  scriptis  et  doctrina, 
Louvain,  1892. 

THIRD  SECTION. 

LATIN  WRITERS. 

§  84.     General  conspectus. 

I.  THE  ROLL  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  WEST  IN  THE  DEVELOPMENT 
OF  DOGMA.  —  The  great  trinitarian  and  christological  conflicts  that 
had  been  fought  out  principally  on  Oriental  soil  (§  60,  2),  could 
not  fail  to  affect  the  Western  Church.  One  of  her  most  eminent 
writers,  Hilary  of  Poitiers,  found  the  work  of  his  life  precisely  in  the 
refutation  of  Arianism.  There  comes  now  to  the  surface,  however,  and 
much  more  markedly,  a  distinction  already  noticed  (§  49)  between 
the  intellectual  temperament  of  the  East  and  that  of  the  West. 
The  Western  Christian  is  less  concerned  with  a  speculative  grasp  of 
the  idea  of  God  than  with  the  practical  duty  of  man.  During  this 
whole  period  only  one  noteworthy  doctrinal  conflict  broke  out  in 
the  Western  Church ;  it  concerned  the  necessity  of  divine  co-operation 
with  the  personal  efforts  of  man  to  attain  his  last  end.  It  is,  there- 
fore, ecclesiastical  anthropology,  that  is  developed  and  cultivated  in 
this  period,  in  opposition  to  Pelagianism  and  Semipelagianism.  In 
addition,  the  nature  and  constitution  of  the  Church  became  an  object 
of  frequent  discussion  and  exposition  apropos  of  the  Novatian  and 
Donatist  schisms. 


398  SECOND   PERIOD.      THIRD   SECTION. 

2.  THEOLOGICAL  SCHOOLS  AND  TENDENCIES.  —  The  above- 
mentioned  Hilary  does  not  fear  to  lose  his  independence  and  origin- 
ality of  thought  by  drawing  on  Greek  sources  in  defence  of  the 
Christian  faith.  His  writings  may  rightly  be  described  as  a  channel 
through  which  the  approved  results  of  Oriental  Christian  theology 
were  made  accessible  to  the  West.  At  a  later  date  a  similar  role 
fell  to  St.  Jerome  and  Rufinus,  as  mediators  between  the  Greek  and 
the  Latin  theology.  The  former  is  certainly  the  most  intellectual 
and  erudite  among  the  Western  Christian  writers.  Like  Rufinus,  once 
his  friend  and  later  his  enemy,  he  is  especially  interested  in  biblico- 
historical  questions,  while  the  strength  of  St.  Hilary  lies  all  in  dog- 
matic speculation.  These  three  authors  to  whom  we  might  add  Marius 
Mercator  and  John  Cassian,  have  been  called,  not  without  reason,  the 
«Grecizing  Westerns.»  —  Specifically  Western  and  untrammelled  by 
Oriental  thought  is  the  position  taken  by  Ambrose,  Augustine  and 
Leo  the  Great.  It  is  highly  illustrative  of  this  mental  attitude  that 
Ambrose,  following  in  the  steps  of  Cicero,  should  be  the  first  to 
attempt  a  complete  expose  of  the  teachings  of  Christian  morality  as 
apart  from  Christian  faith.  At  the  same  time,  in  exegesis  also  Am- 
brose followed  Greek  models  and  even  passed  through  Origen  and 
Hippolytus  back  to  the  Jew  Philo;  it  is  also  true  that  in  dogmatic 
exposition  this  «Emperor  among  the  bishops  of  the  West»  sought 
his  model  in  St.  Basil  the  Great,  a  man  quite  akin  to  him  in  cha- 
racter and  mental  bent.  —  In  the  person  of  the  African  Augustine 
theological  supremacy,  even  in  the  province  of  speculation,  was  trans- 
ferred from  the  East  to  the  West.  In  Pelagianism  and  Semipelagian- 
ism,  Augustine  found  himself  confronted  by  quite  new  questions  amid 
the  difficulties  of  which  his  incomparably  acute  and  profound  spirit 
had  to  clear  a  way  for  itself.  He  breathed  a  new  life  into  nearly 
all  branches  of  ecclesiastical  science,  labored  at  them  with  creative 
vigor,    and  set   before   them   new   tasks   and  aims.  —  Leo   I.   bears 

rightly  not  only  the  title  of  the  «Great»  pope,  but  also  that  of 
«Doctor  of  the  Church».  Quite  worthy  of  the  mighty  energy  with 
which  he  governed  and  directed  the  ecclesiastical  situation  of  his 
time  is  the  intellectual  pre-eminence  which  he  held  throughout  the 
Eutychian  or  Monophysite  conflict.  —  A  specifically  theological  school 
appears  early  in  the  fifth  century  in  the  newly  founded  monasteries 
on  the  Isle  of  Lerins  and  in  the  vicinity  of  Marseilles.  Its  bond  of 
union  is  a  common  opposition  to  the  teaching  of  Augustine,  i.  e. 
Semipelagianism,  to  call  it  by  its  later  name.  The  most  remarkable 
theologians  of  this  school   are  John  Cassian   and  Vincent   of  Lerins. 

3.  THEOLOGICAL  LITERATURE.  —  Apologetic:  It  is  only  natural 
that  henceforth  the  Latin  apologetic  literature  of  the  Christians  should 
quit  the  defensive  and  assume  rather  an  aggressive  character  (§  60,  4). 
Firmicus  Maternus   attacks   the   mysteries   of  the   pagans.    Ambrose 


§   84.      GENERAL    CONSPECTUS.  399 

and  Prudentius  denounce  the  last  manifestations  of  decadent  heathenism 
in  public  life  and  the  pretentions  of  the  old  Roman  senatorial  ele- 
ment under  the  leadership  of  Symmachus.  Augustine  and  Orosius 
refute  the  charge  that  the  miseries  of  the  present  ceaseless  horrors 
of  war,  and  the  collapse  of  the  empire,  are  the  results  of  Christianity. 
The  reply  of  Augustine  to  these  reproaches  is  the  great  and  noble 
work  on  the  City  of  God,  the  first  attempt  at  a  philosophy  of  his- 
tory. It  is  Augustine  again  who  leads  the  Christian  defence  against 
the  Manichaeans,  doubly  qualified  for  this  office  by  reason  of  the 
long  years  (374 — 383)  that  he  had  spent  in  the  service  of  Mani. 
Several  Spanish  writers  refute  the  heresy  of  Priscillian  which  is  close 
akin  to  Manichaeism  —  among  them  Prudentius  (?),  and  besides  them 
Augustine,  at  the  suggestion  of  the  Spaniard  Orosius.  —  Polemic  and 
systematic  theology:  We  have  already  seen  that  the  refutation  of 
Arianism  in  the  West  and  the  exposition  of  Catholic  doctrine  con- 
cerning the  Trinity  fell  to  the  lot  of  Hilary  of  Poitiers.  Other  parti- 
cipants in  the  conflict  were  Lucifer  of  Calaris,  Phobadius  of  Agennum, 
Ambrose  and  Augustine.  John  Cassian  and  Marius  Mercator  wrote 
against  Nestorianism,  Leo  the  Great  against  Monophysitism.  Pacianus 
of  Barcelona  and  Ambrose  defended  the  power  of  the  keys  against 
its  persistent  denial  by  Novatianism.  The  great  and  perilous  schism 
of  the  Donatists  in  Africa  called  forth  the  efforts  of  Optatus  of  Mileve 
and  Augustine,  who  made  clear  the  essential  elements  of  the  Church 
and  the  objective  efficacy  of  the  sacraments.  The  most  important  and 
most  difficult  problem  of  Western  polemical  theology  is  connected 
with  the  name  of  the  British  monk  Pelagius.  The  refutation  of  Pe- 
lagian naturalism  earned  for  Augustine  the  immortal  title  of  Doctor 
gratiae.  He  was  bravely  aided  by  Jerome,  Orosius  and  Marius  Mer- 
cator. The  doctrine  of  Augustine  was  attacked  by  the  Semipelagians, 
but  found  well-equipped  defenders  in  Prosper  of  Aquitaine  and  the 
anonymous  author  of  the  De  vocatione  omnium  gentium.  At  this 
period  we  meet,  in  both  East  and  West,  with  very  few  attempts  at  a 
systematized  theology;  Augustine  wrote  a  compendium  of  ecclesiastical 
doctrine,  Vincent  of  Lerins  a  precise  exposition  of  the  Church's  rule 
of  faith,  i.  e.  the  principle  of  tradition.  —  Biblical  theology :  It  is 
to  St.  Jerome  that  we  owe  the  best  work  in  this  province.  He  alone 
among  all  the  Western  theologians  understands,  and  understands  pro- 
foundly, the  Hebrew  tongue.  He  gave  to  the  Western  Church  a 
translation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which  is  far  superior  to  all 
previous  attempts  of  the  kind.  Biblical  Introduction  and  Biblical 
Archaeology  are  also  deeply  indebted  to  him.  On  the  other  hand, 
his  abundant  commentaries  on  many  books  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  fall  below  our  just  expectations ;  they  were,  for  the  most 
part,  written  hastily  and  exhibit  repeatedly  a  lack  of  clear  and  correct 
hermeneutic  principles.     Other   ecclesiastical   exegetes   are   Hilary  of 


400  SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

Poitiers,  Ambrose  and  Augustine,  all  of  whom  cherish  the  allegorical 
method  of  interpretation.  And  though  on  this  point  the  Latin  and 
the  Greek  exegesis  are  in  accord,  there  is  a  characteristic  dif- 
ference: the  Latins,  and  particularly  Ambrose,  are  usually  hortatory, 
while  among  the  Greeks  it  is  the  doctrinal  point  of  view  that  pre- 
dominates. Augustine  made  also  a  notable  contribution  to  Gospel- 
criticism  in  his  work  De  consensu  evangeli star  urn.  Biblical  geography 
was  illustrated  by  the  authors  of  the  Itinerarium  a  Burdigala  Hieru- 
salem  usque  and  the  Peregrinatio  ad  loca  sancta.  The  Donatist 
Tichonius  and  Eucherius  of  Lyons  established  principles  for  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  figurative  expressions  of  Holy  Scripture.  A  com- 
prehensive theory  of  biblical  hermeneutics  is  found  in  the  De  doc- 
trina  Christiana  of  Augustine.  —  Historical  theology:  In  this  depart- 
ment the  Latins  accomplished  much  less  than  the  Greeks.  Jerome 
translated  into  Latin  and  continued  the  second  part  of  the  Chronicle 
of  Eusebius.  Similarly,  Rufinus  paraphrased  and  continued  the  Church 
History  of  Eusebius.  The  Chronicle  of  St.  Jerome  was  continued  by 
Prosper  of  Aquitaine.  Sulpicius  Severus  wrote  a  well-known  history 
from  the  Creation  to  A.  D.  400.  Less  important,  though  covering 
more  ground,  is  the  work  of  the  Spanish  priest  Orosius.  Philastrius 
and  Augustine  (De  haeresibus)  wrote  histories  of  heresies.  Jerome 
composed  the  first  history  of  Christian  literature.  The  same  writer 
compiled  edifying  biographies,  as  did  Sulpicius  Severus,  Rufinus  and 
Paulinus  of  Milan.  —  Practical  theology:  There  is  now  a  great 
abundance  of  ascetico-moral  literature ;  the  best  writers  in  this  depart- 
ment are  Ambrose,  Jerome  and  Augustine.  We  have  already  mentioned 
the  manual  of  Christian  morality  drawn  up  by  Ambrose;  it  was 
specially  destined  for  the  clergy.  John  Cassian  wrote  two  ascetical 
works  for  the  edification  of  monks.  Augustine  prepared  the  first 
manual  of  homiletics  in  the  fourth  book  of  his  De  doctrina  Christiana 
and  the  first  manual  of  Catechetics  in  his  work  De  catechizandis 
rudibus.  He  is  also  the  chief  master  of  practical  pulpit  eloquence. 
For  copiousness  of  thought  and  force  of  logic,  he  has  never  been 
surpassed,  though  Ambrose  reaches  a  higher  level  of  oratorical  sub- 
limity and  brilliancy.  After  these  masters  of  oratory,  Leo  the  Great, 
Peter  Chrysologus,  and  Maximus  of  Turin  merit  a  place  among  the 
great  Christian  preachers. 

4.    THEOLOGICAL    LITERATURE    (CONTINUED).      POETRY.     —    The 

Latins,  like  the  Syrians,  are  far  more  productive  in  the  field  of 
Christian  poetry  than  the  Greeks.  Didactic  poems,  after  the  manner 
of  Commodian,  the  first  Christian  poet,  were  written  by  Prudentius, 
Paulinus  of  Nola,  Augustine,  Prosper  of  Aquitaine,  Orientius,  and 
others;  among  them  Prudentius  has  always  been  recognized  as  a 
master.  Still  greater  is  the  number  of  poets  who  attempted  to  excel 
in  the  epic  properly  so-called.   Proba  tried  to  put  the  entire  biblical 


§    85.      FIRMICUS    MATERNUS.  401 

history  into  a  Cento ;  Cyprian  of  Gaul,  Claudius  Marius  Victor  (Alethia), 
the  authors  of  the  poems  De  Sodoma,  De  Jona,  De  martyrio  Mac- 
cabaeorum  and  others  treat  Old  Testament  themes;  Juvencus,  Sedulius 
(Paschale  carmen)  and  others  take  up  the  life  of  our  Lord.  Pope 
Damasus,  Prudentius,  Paulinus  of  Nola  left  panegyrical  poems  on 
Christ  and  the  Saints.  This  Christian  Latin  poetry  is  based  on  the 
old  Roman  epic ,  and  follows  closely  the  laws  of  its  technic ;  it 
offers  nothing  new  except  the  subject-matter  and  the  personal  treat- 
ment of  the  same.  It  is  otherwise  with  the  lyric  poetry  that  begins 
henceforth  to  flourish  among  Latin  Christians,  or  the  peculiarly  new 
species  of  poetic  form  known  as  the  hymn.  Poems  of  this  kind, 
distinguished  for  boldness  and  sublimity  of  thought  as  well  as  for 
depth  and  tenderness  of  sentiment,  were  written  by  Hilary  of  Poitiers, 
Ambrose,  Prudentius  and  Sedulius.  All  this  lyric  poetry  in  its  inmost 
nature  is  a  flower  of  Christian  life,  however  attired  it  may  be  in  the 
antique  poetical  forms  in  the  beginning.  It  could  never  have  grown 
on  a  heathen  soil  because  the  conditions  were  wanting,  notably  moral 
purity  and  solidity  of  religious  conviction.  During  this  period,  both 
among  Latins  and  Greeks,  we  perceive  the  beginning  of  an  entirely 
new  form  of  poetical  activity.  The  popular  ecclesiastical  poetry  frees 
itself  gradually  from  the  bonds  of  antiquated  metrical  laws,  and 
takes  refuge  in  rhythmic  versification  based  on  the  accentuation  of 
certain  words.  The  first  Latin  poem  in  which  the  arsis  of  the  verse 
is  placed  on  accentuated  syllables  is  the  Psalmus  contra  partem  Donati 
of  Augustine. 

§  85.    Firmicus  Maternus. 

Julius  Firmicus  Maternus  is  the  name,  vouched  for  by  the  only 
extant  manuscript  (cod.  Vaticano-Palatinus,  saec.  x.),  of  the  author 
of  a  work  De  err  ore  profanarum  religionum  in  which  the  emperors 
Constantius  (337; — 361)  and  Constans  (337 — 350)  are  urged  to  deal 
a  death  blow  to  decadent  heathenism.  Our  knowledge  of  the  author 
is  confined  to  what  we  can  glean  from  the  solitary  manuscript  of 
his  work,  mutilated  moreover  at  the  beginning,  where  the  two  outer 
leaves  of  the  first  quaternio  are  wanting.  It  was  very  probably  com- 
posed about  347,  if  we  are  to  judge  from  the  reference  (c.  29,  3)  to 
the  illsuccess  of  the  Persians  in  their  war  against  Rome;  it  is  also 
possible  that  the  vicinity  of  Henna  in  Sicily  was  the  home  or  re- 
sidence of  the  author,  at  least  he  shows  a  rather  exact  knowledge 
of  that  place.  There  is  a  growing  inclination  to  attribute  the  work 
to  a  certain  Julius  Firmicus  Maternus  Junior  Siculus,  author  of  a 
heathen  astrological  work  entitled  Mathesis;  since  Mommsen  settled 
the  date  of  this  latter  heathen  compilation,  the  above-mentioned  view 
is  gaining  ground.  A  very  strong  argument  in  favor  of  identity  of 
authorship  is  found  in   the  striking   similarity  of  style.     We   should 

Bardenhevver-Shahan,  Patrology.  •  26 


402  SECOND    PERIOD.      THIRD   SECTION. 

have  to  suppose,  of  course,  that  after  the  composition  of  his  pagan 
work  (334 — 337)  Firmicus  Maternus  was  converted  to  the  Christian 
religion.  The  Christian  work  is  a  direct  attack  on  the  «mysteries» 
in  which  heathenism  was  making  its  last  stand ;  the  crass  superstition 
and  the  unnatural  immorality  often  exhibited  in  them  are  laid  bare 
(cc.  6 — 17).  The  author  attempts  to  prove  that  the  pass- words,  signa 
vel  symbola,  by  which  the  initiated  recognized  one  another,  are  only 
diabolical  imitations  of  biblical  expressions,  more  particularly  of  the 
sayings  of  the  prophets  (cc.  18 — 27).  At  the  end  (cc.  28  29)  the 
duty  of  both  emperors  is  laid  down  with  emphatic  appeals  to  the  old 
Testament:  they  must  root  out  the  remnants  of  heathenism;  in  return 
God  will  reward  them  by  new  proofs  of  His  mercy,  which  has 
otherwise  been  so  largely  vouchsafed  to  them  because  of  their  faith. 
The  little  work  exhibits  a  certain  fanaticism,  and  does  not  hesitate 
to  urge  violent  measures.  Nevertheless,  the  author  is  concerned  for 
the  true  interest  of  the  heathens:  once  the  sick  man  is  restored  to 
health,  he  recognizes  gratefully  the  useful  character  of  remedies 
otherwise  disagreeable  and  painful  (c.  16,  4 — 5).  The  heathenism  of 
the  fourth  century  was  probably  never  described  in  a  more  true  and 
reliable  manner  than  in  this  work.  From  a  dogmatico-historical 
point  of  view,  the  long  passage  on  the  Blessed  Eucharist  (c.  18)  is 
especially  important.  The  style  of  the  work  is  very  lively  and  em- 
phatic, and  the  diction  quite  pure,  though  not  free  from  plebeian 
expressions.  g 

The  famous  Codex  Vaticano-Palatinus  is  described  by  A.  Reiff er  scheid, 
Bibl.  Patrum  Lat.  Italica,  i.  268 — 269.  The  first  edition  is  that  of  M.  Fla- 
cius  Illyricus,  Strassburg,  1562,  often  reprinted  with  more  or  less  exactness ; 
it  is  found  also  in  Gallandi,  Bibl.  vet.  Patr.,  v.  21 — 39,  and  in  Migne,  PL., 
xii.  971 — 1050.  New  editions  based  on  fresh  collations  of  the  Codex  are 
due  to  C.  Bursian,  Leipzig,  1856,  and  C.  Halm,  Vienna,  1867  (Corpus 
script,  eccles.  lat.  ii).  Cf.  CI.  H.  Moore,  Julius  Firmicus  Maternus,  der 
Heide  und  der  Christ  (Inaug.-Diss.),  Munich,  1897.  A  new  edition  of  the 
pagan  work  (a  complete  theory  of  astrology)  was  undertaken  by  W.  Kroll 
and  F.  Skutsch:  Julii  Firmici  Materni  Matheseos  libri  viii,  fasc.  i,  Leipzig, 
1897.  For  the  date  of  composition  of  this  latter  work  cf.  Th.  Mommscn, 
in  Hermes  (1894),  xxix.  468  ff.,  and  Moore,  1.  c. ,  pp.  2  ff.  C.  Weyman, 
l'astrologie  dans  le  De  errore  de  Firmicus  (c.  17,  1),  in  Revue  d'hist.  et  de 
litterat.  religieuses  (1898),  iii.  383 — 384.  A.  Becker,  Julius  Firmicus  Maternus 
und  Pseudo-Quintilian,  in  Philologus,  new  series  (1902),  xv.  476 — 478. 

§  86.    St.  Hilary  of  Poitiers. 

I.  HIS  LIFE.  The  Arian  discords  were  far-reaching  enough  to 
disturb  profoundly  even  the  Western  Church.  Jerome  could  write 
apropos  of  the  results  of  the  double  synod  of  Seleucia-Rimini  (359): 
Ingemuit  totus  orbis  et  Arianum  se  esse  miratus  est1.  When  Arianism, 

1  Altere.  Lucif.  et  orthod.,  c.   19. 


§    86.      ST.    HILARY    OF    POITIERS.  403 

or  rather  Semiarianism,  was  at  the  acme  of  its  career,  a  brilliant  star 
arose  in  Gaul  and  began  to  diffuse  its  sweet  and  tranquil  light  amid 
the  storms  of  that  sad  time ;  this  was  St.  Hilary  of  Poitiers,  a  theo- 
logian of  wonderful  profundity  of  thought,  of  cogent  and  forcible 
diction,  but  also  gentle  and  affectionate  in  sentiment  and  of  kingly 
courage.  He  is  often  called  «the  Athanasius  of  the  West»,  a  title 
that  belongs  more  appropriately  to  Hosius  of  Cordova  (§  87,  1). 
Certainly  Hilary  was  one  of  the  principal  instruments  of  divine  Pro- 
vidence in  the  extirpation  of  Arianism  from  Gaul,  and  in  the  pre- 
servation of  the  true  Christian  faith.  Born  of  a  noble  heathen  family 
of  Poitiers  (Pictavi  in  Aquitania),  probably  between  310  and  320,  he 
devoted  all  his  attention  from  childhood  to  the  study  of  Latin  and 
Greek.  As  he  grew  up,  it  seemed  to  him  that  the  heathen  philosophy 
furnished  no  sufficient  answer  to  the  problem  of  human  destiny;  it 
was  almost  by  accident  that  he  was  led  to  the  Holy  Scriptures 
wherein  he  was  to  find  the  object  of  his  longing.  In  the  opening 
lines  of  his  greatest  work 1  he  has  discussed  the  manner  in  which 
he  was  made  to  see  the  truth  and  become  a  Christian.  It  is  pro- 
bable that  shortly  after  his  baptism,  which  he  did  not  long  delay, 
the  clergy  and  people  of  Poitiers  chose  him  unanimously  for  their 
bishop.  By  the  year  355  he  had  been  a  bishop  already  for  some 
time  (aliquantisper) 2.  Though  he  did  not  take  part  in  the  synod  of 
Milan  (355)  at  which  the  emperor  Constantius  effected  in  so  harsh 
and  despotic  a  way  the  condemnation  of  Athanasius,  he  was  destined 
to  suffer  the  consequences  of  this  step.  Saturninus,  bishop  of  Aries, 
an  Arian  sympathizer,  was  desirous  of  profiting  by  this  victory  in 
order  to  consolidate  in  Gaul  the  standing  of  Arianism.  He  found  in 
Hilary  a  vigorous  opponent  and  a  man  capable  of  rallying  around 
the  standard  of  orthodoxy  all  the  right-minded  bishops  of  Gaul; 
they  renounced  the  communion  of  the  Arians.  Saturninus  replied  by 
accusing  Hilary  and  his  friends  of  political  intrigues  against  the 
emperor.  The  mendacious  report  of  a  synod  convoked  by  Saturninus 
at  Biterrae  (Beziers  in  Languedoc),  in  the  spring  of  356,  caused  the 
emperor  to  banish  Hilary  from  Gaul  to  Asia  Minor.  He  was  allowed, 
however,  to  retain  a  certain  personal  freedom,  and  seems  to  have 
spent  most  of  his  exile  in  Phrygia.  Here  he  became  more  thoroughly 
acquainted  with  the  writings  of  the  Greek  Fathers,  through  the  study 
of  which  his  powers  of  speculative  thought  rapidly  matured.  It  was 
in  this  exile  that  he  wrote  the  most  important  of  his  works;  he 
also  found  there  the  inspiration  for  his  hymns.  In  359  he  assisted 
at  the  synod  of  Seleucia  Aspera,  the  provincial  capital  of  Isauria; 
thence  he  accompanied  to  Constantinople  the  deputies  of  the  synod. 
The  Arians  now  caused  him  to  be  sent  home  to  Gaul  as  «a  disturber 


1  De  trin.,  i.   iff.  2  De  syn.,  c.  91. 

26 


404  SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

of  the  peace  of  the  East» :  quasi  discordiae  seminarium  et  pertur- 
bator  Orientis  redire  ad  Gallias  iubetur,  absque  exilii  indulgentia K 
Early  in  360  he  returned  to  his  fatherland  by  way  of  Italy  and  was 
everywhere  received  with  great  joy.  His  immediate  concern  was  the 
healing  of  the  grave  wounds  inflicted  on  the  Church  of  Gaul,  chiefly 
by  Saturninus.  Many  bishops  had  accepted  the  Arian  creed  either 
through  ignorance  or  through  fear;  the  mild  and  considerate  policy 
of  Hilary  made  it  easy  for  them  to  return  to  the  Catholic  fold.  At 
the  national  council  of  Paris  (361),  that  had  been  preceded  by  several 
provincial  councils,  he  was  able  to  unite  nearly  all  the  bishops  of 
Gaul  on  the  basis  of  the  Nicene  Creed  and  to  bring  about  the  de- 
position of  Saturninus.  Sulpicius  Severus  closes  his  account  of  this 
event  with  the  following  words:  Illud  apud  omnes  constitit  unius 
Hilarii  beneficio  Gallias  nostras  piaculo  haeresis  liberatas2.  The  in- 
fluence of  the  great  bishop  was  felt  even  throughout  Italy.  He  pre- 
sided over  the  synod  of  Milan  in  364,  at  which  there  was  question  of 
the  orthodoxy  of  Auxentius,  the  Arian  bishop  of  that  city.  The 
latter,  however,  was  able  to  deceive  the  emperor  Valentinian,  and 
Hilary  was  compelled  to  quit  Milan.  He  died  in  his  native  city  «in 
the  sixth  year  after  his  return»3,  i.  e.  in  the  year  366.  Posterity  has 
been  unanimous  in  its  admiration  for  this  great  Christian.  St.  Jerome, 
writing  in  384,  sums  up  in  the  following  words4  the  judgment  of 
his  contemporaries:  «The  merit  of  his  confession  (of  the  faith),  the 
activity  of  his  life,  and  the  splendor  of  his  eloquence  will  be  cele- 
brated wherever  the  name  of  Rome  is  heard  (ubicumque  Romanum 
nomen  est). 

2.    HIS  WORK   DE   TRINITATE.     THE  STYLE  OF  ST.  HILARY.  —    The 

principal  work  of  our  author  is  entitled:  De  trinitate  libri  xii5,  a 
superscription  current  since  the  sixth  century;  the  original  title  was: 
De  fide  or  De  fide  adver sus  Arianos.  The  work  was  composed 
during  356 — 359  in  Asia  Minor;  its  purpose  is  to  define  and  establish 
in  a  scientific  way  against  Arianism  the  ecclesiastical  teaching  con- 
cerning the  God-Man.  In  the  first  book  are  set  forth  the  necessity 
and  the  happiness  of  a  true  knowledge  of  God;  then  follows  a 
summary  of  all  twelve  books.  The  second  book  takes  as  its  basis 
the  baptismal  formula  and  describes  the  mystery  of  the  divine  gene- 
ration of  the  Son:  sacramentum  edocet  divinae  generationis  (i.  21). 
In  the  third  book  he  undertakes  to  illustrate,  apropos  of  John  x.  38: 
ego  in  Patre  et  Pater  in  me,  the  consubstantiality  of  the  Son  and 
the  Father.  The  following  four  books  attack  the  teachings  of  the 
heretics  and  refute  their  objections  against  the  divinity  of  the  Son. 
In  the  eighth  book  he  proves  that  the  dogma  of  monotheism  is  not 
affected  by  the  recognition  of  the  Son  of  God:    octavus   liber  totus 

1  Sulp.  Sev.,  Chron.,  ii.  45,  4.  2  Ib.,  Ii.  45,  7.  3  Ib.,  ii.  45,  9. 

4  Ep.  34,  3.  5  Migne,  PL.,  x.  25 — 472. 


§    86.      ST.    HILARY    OF    POITIERS.  405 

in  unius  Dei  demonstratione  detentus  est  (i.  28).  The  ninth  book 
refutes  the  objection  of  the  heretics  against  the  eternal  birth  of  the 
Son  from  the  Father:  nonus  liber  totus  in  repellendis  iis  quae  ad 
innrmandam  Unigeniti  Dei  nativitatem  (not:  divinitatem)  ab  impiis 
usurpantur,  intentus  est  (i.  29).  The  tenth  book  undertakes  to  re- 
concile with  Christian  faith  in  the  true  divinity  of  the  Son  the  evidences 
of  pain  on  the  part  of  Christ;  the  eleventh  book  treats  of  the  sub- 
ordination of  Christ  referred  to  in  John  xx.  17  and  1  Cor.  xv.  27 — 28. 
In  the  twelfth  book,  finally,  he  undertakes  to  illustrate  as  far  as 
human  reason  may  do,  how  completely  different  is  the  eternal  birth  of 
the  Son  from  that  of  any  temporal  being.  The  entire  work  is  a 
sustained  and  intensely  enthusiastic  plea  for  the  faith  of  the  Church. 
In  the  domain  of  early  ecclesiastical  literature  it  is  certainly  the  most 
imposing  of  all  the  works  written  against  Arianism.  It  is  true  that 
he  bases  his  arguments  on  the  speculative  thought  of  the  Greek 
Fathers,  but  he  does  not,  therefore,  cease  to  be  a  writer  of  inde- 
pendence and  originality.  He  was  the  first  to  act  as  an  intermediary 
between  the  theology  of  the  East  and  that  of  the  West;  thereby 
he  contributed  to  the  latter  many  new  germs  of  thought  and  method 
the  influence  of  which  was  afterwards  visible  in  the  admirable  de- 
velopment of  Latin  theology.  The  peculiarities  of  his  christological 
doctrine  will  be  touched  on  below  (no.  6).  Hilary  paid  very  great 
attention  to  the  literary  finish  of  his  work.  In  the  prayer  for  divine 
aid  with  which  the  first  book  (i.  38)  closes  he  says:  Tribue  ergo 
nobis  verborum  significationem,  intelligentiae  lumen,  dictorum  hono- 
rem, veritatis  fidem.  His  diction  is  always  pithy  and  dignified.  In 
his  judgment  on  the  style  of  the  great  bishop  of  Poitiers,  Jerome 
betrays1  e  certain  narrowness:  «Saint  Hilary»,  he  says,  «paces  so- 
lemnly along  clothed  in  the  Gallic  buskin,  he  adorns  himself  with 
the  flowers  of  Hellas  and  frequently  becomes  involved  in  his  long 
periods;  hence  he  is  a  writer  not  at  all  suited  to  the  needs  of  the 
less  cultured  among  our  brethren».  What  lends  a  certain  solemnity 
and  sublimity  to  the  language  of  Hilary  is  not  a  love  of  rhetorical 
pomp,  but  the  sincerity  and  warmth  of  his  convictions.  Robust  vigor 
and  a  stout  unyielding  heart,  intellectual  force  and  solidity  of  cha- 
racter are  visible  all  through  his  work.  If  we  miss  in  his  style  the 
qualities  of  delicacy  and  grace,  their  absence  is  amply  compensated 
for  by  his  powerful  personality  and  his  charming  originality.  It  is 
true  that  the  average  reader  of  Hilary  finds  his  language  difficult, 
but  this,  however,  is  to  be  attributed  not  to  obscurity  of  style,  but 
to  the  depth  and  the  boldness  of  the  ideas  he  is  expressing. 

3.  HISTORICO-POLEMICAL  WRITINGS.  —  He  was  often  compelled, 
like  Athanasius,  to  defend  the  truth  of  history  against  the  falsifications 

1  Ep.  58,   10. 


406  SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

and  misrepresentations  of  Arian  writers.  In  the  first  treatise  addressed 
(355)  t0  tne  emperor  Constantius  (Ad  Constantium  Augustum,  lib.  i.)1 
he  defended  with  the  eloquence  of  a  clear  conscience  his  political 
innocence  from  the  malicious  insinuations  of  Saturninus  and  his  fellow- 
Arians.  In  a  memorial  addressed  (360)  to  the  same  emperor  (Ad 
Constantium  Augustum,  lib.  II)2,  he  petitioned  for  an  audience  with 
the  ruler  of  the  Roman  world  in  the  presence  of  Saturninus;  he 
offered  to  compel  the  latter  to  confess  then  and  there  his  mendacity 
and  his  intrigues  (ad  confessionem  falsorum  quae  gessit,  c.  3).  His 
confidence  in  the  emperor  was  soon  shaken;  the  latter  turned  a 
willing  ear  to  the  Arians  alone.  Hilary  gave  vent  to  the  pain  and 
wrath  of  his  soul  in  an  attack  on  the  emperor  (Contra  Constantium) 3, 
written  at  Constantinople  in  360,  but  not  published  until  after  the 
death  of  the  emperor  (Nov.  3.,  361).  It  is  at  once  a  cry  of  anguish 
and  a  note  of  alarm  forced  from  the  depths  of  his  spirit  by  the 
imminent  peril  of  the  faith.  In  the  very  first  chapters  (cc.  1  ff.)  he 
denounces  Constantius  as  Antichrist;  later  on  he  compares  him  to 
Nero,  Decius  and  Maximian  (cc.  7ff.).  When  Constantius  convoked 
the  double  synod  of  the  East  at  Seleucia  and  of  the  West  at  Rimini, 
Hilary  wrote  in  the  spring  of  3  5  9  his :  De  synodis  sen  De  fide  Orien- 
talium*.  It  is  addressed  primarily  to  the  Western  bishops,  but  is 
meant  likewise  for  their  brethren  in  the  East,  its  object  being  to 
ensure  harmonious  co-operation  of  all  defenders  of  the  Nicene  Creed 
during  the  impending  synods.  Hilary  saw  in  the  ignorance  of  the 
Western  bishops  concerning  the  history  of  the  Eastern  synods  since 
the  gathering  at  Nicaea  (325)  the  chief  cause  of  the  existing  tension; 
he,  therefore,  describes  at  length  what  took  place  in  the  subsequent 
synods.  Many  other  letters  of  St.  Hilary  written  during  his  exile  to 
the  bishops  of  Gaul  are  lost5.  He  was  obliged  to  defend  the  con- 
ciliatory letter  just  described  from  the  attacks  of  the  quarrelsome 
Lucifer,  bishop  of  Calaris  (§  87,  2);  this  he  did  in  a  special  work 
that  is  now  known  to  us  only  through  insignificant  fragments:  Apo- 
logetica  ad  reprehensores  libri  de  synodis  responsa  6.  —  In  his  memorial 
to  the  bishops  of  Italy  (365):  Contra  Arianos  vel  Auxentium  Medio- 
lanensem7,  he  warns  them  not  to  hold  communion  with  the  latter. 
Jerome  mentions8  two  polemical  works  of  Hilary  that  have  not  reached 
us:  Liber  adversum  Valentem  et  Ursacium,  historiam  Ariminensis  et 
Seleuciensis  synodi  continens,  and :  Ad  praefectum  Sallustium  sive 
contra  Dioscorum.  The:  Fragmenta  (15)  ex  opere  historico^^  which 
the  defenders  of  their  authenticity  usually  describe  as  remnants  of 
the  first  mentioned  of  these  two  works,    are,    with  the  exception  of 

1  Migne,  PL.,  x.  557— 564.  2  Ib.,  x.   563—572. 

3  Ib.,  x.   577 — 606.  4  Ib.,  x.  479 — 546.  5  De  syn.;  c.    1. 

6  Migne,  PL.,  x.   545—548-  7  Ib.,  x.  609—618. 

3  De  viris  ill.,  c.    100.  9  Migne,  PL.,  x.  627 — 724. 


§    86.      ST.    HILARY    OF    POITIERS.  407 

the  first  fragment,  probably  spurious  in  their  entirety.  Of  the  second 
of  these  works  Jerome  says1:  Hilarius  brevi  libello,  quern  scripsit 
contra  Dioscorum  medicum,  quid  in  litteris  possit,  ostendit. 

4.  EXEGETICAL  WRITINGS.  —  Hilary  is  a  pioneer  in  the  field  of 
scholarly  exegesis  in  the  West.  Before  him  the  Western  Church 
possessed  but  few  commentators:  Victorinus  of  Pettau,  Reticius  of 
Autun  (§  58),  and  Fortunatianus  of  Aquileia2.  The  commentaries 
of  the  rhetorician  Marius  Victorinus  belong  probably  to  a  later  period 
(§  87,  8).  The  earliest  work  of  St.  Hilary  is  a  commentary  on 
Matthew3,  composed  about  355,  at  a  time  when  he  had  not  yet 
become  involved  in  the  Arian  conflict.  The  textual  exposition  is 
based  on  the  theory  that  all  Scripture  öfters  a  prophetic  or  typical 
character:  typica  ratio  xvii.  8,  xix.  1;  causae  interiores  xii.  12;  caele- 
stis  intelligentia  xx.  2.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  commentator  to  recognize 
and  set  forth  this  profounder  meaning  of  the  sacred  text.  Hilary 
does  not  consider  it  necessary  to  treat  of  the  historico-grammatical 
meaning,  nor  does  he  take  into  consideration  the  Greek  text  of  the 
Scripture.  Somewhat  different  is  his  attitude  in  the  commentary  on 
the  Psalms:  Tractatus  super  Psalmos4,  written  probably  in  the  last 
years  of  his  life.  It  is  always  the  celestial  sense,  the  prophetic  contents 
of  the  text,  that  he  aims  at  disengaging  from  the  letter;  nevertheless 
he  recognizes  the  claims  of  the  literal  sense,  and  frequently  compares 
various  Greek  and  Latin  translations.  He  also  makes  mention  of 
earlier  commentators5.  When  St.  Jerome  remarks6  that  Hilary  imitated 
Origen,  but  added  something  of  his  own,  he  is  certainly  unjust  to 
the  former.  It  is  very  probable  that  this  commentary  once  included 
all  the  Psalms,  but  in  the  shape  in  which  it  was  known  to  St.  Jerome 
the  commentary  treated  only  of  Psalms  I  2  51 — 62  118 — 150.  The 
later  editions  (Migne,  Zingerle)  offer  commentaries  on  Psalms  129 
13  14  51 — 69  91  118  — 150,  also  an  appendix  of  fragmentary  or 
spurious  treatises  on  some  other  Psalms.  Both  these  commentaries 
of  Hilary  were  highly  esteemed  in  later  ages  and  contributed  greatly 
to  spread  throughout  the  West  the  allegorizing  method  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  Scripture.  Only  two  small  fragments7  are  extant  of  his 
Tractatus  in  Job,  which  was  according  to  St.  Jerome 8  only  a  trans- 
lation of  Origen.  St.  Jerome  had  also  heard  9  from  others  of  the  existence 
of  a  commentary  of  Hilary  on  the  Canticle  of  canticles.  Some  modern 
writers,  trusting  to  later  indications,  attribute  to  Hilary  a  (lost)  com- 
mentary on  the  Pauline  Epistles.  The  Liber  mysteriorum  cited  by 
St.  Jerome10  belongs,    according  to  the  fragments  published  by  Ga- 

1  Ep.  70,   5.  2  Hier.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  97;   Comra.  in  Matth.,   praef. 

3  Migne,  PL.,  ix.  917—1078.  4  Ib.,  ix.   231—908. 

5  Instr.,  c.    1 ;  In  Ps.  liv.   9;  In  Ps.  cxxiv.    1. 

6  De  viris  ill.,  c.   100;  cf.  Ep.  61,  2.  7  Migne,  PL.,  x.   723—724. 
8  De  viris  ill.,  c.   100.              9  lb.              10  lb. 


408  SECOND   PERIOD.      THIRD   SECTION. 

murrini  in  1887,  to  the  exegetical  writings;  it  must  have  been  a 
treatise  on  prophetical  types  of  the  Old  Testament  and  not  a  liturgy, 
as  was  formerly  thought.  Mai  published  in  1852  treatises  on  the 
beginning  of  the  first  and  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  Gospels,  also 
on  the  man  sick  of  the  palsy1;  though  attributed  to  Hilary,  they 
are  spurious. 

5.  HYMNS  OF  HILARY.  —  St.  Jerome  says2  that  Hilary  composed 
a  hymn-book  (Liber  hymnorum),  and  according  to  St.  Isidore  of 
Seville3  he  was  the  first  to  excel  in  the  composition  of  hymns: 
hymnorum  carmine  floruit  primus.  In  the  eleventh-century  manuscript 
whence  Gamurrini  took  his  fragments  of  the  «Book  of  Mysteries» 
(see  no.  4),  there  are  remnants  of  the  «Book  of  Hymns»  i.  e.  of 
three  hymns,  in  an  incomplete  and  mutilated  condition.  All  three 
hymns  celebrate  the  redemption  of  the  human  race  by  the  God-Man. 
The  second  hymn  is  not,  as  Gamurrini  imagined,  composed  by  a 
woman,  but  rather  by  Hilary  for  a  woman.  Each  of  the  three  hymns 
exhibits  a  distinct  metre;  the  first  two  are  in  acrostichs  i.  e.  each 
strophe  begins  with  a  letter  of  the  alphabet;  errors  of  prosody  abound. 
Other  hymns  have  long  been  current  under  the  name  of  Hilary,  e.  g. 
the  lovely  morning  song  Lucis  largitor  splendide,  and  the  vesper 
song  Ad  caeli  clara  non  sum  dignus  sidera.  Their  genuineness, 
however,  has  been  much  disputed.  In  any  case  the  discovery  of 
Gamurrini  shows  that  one  must  not  ask  from  St.  Hilary  too  rigorous 
an  adhesion  to  the  fixed  rules  of  classic  prosody.  Hilary  caught 
from  the  Greeks  of  Asia  Minor  his  love  of  hymns ;  for  he  had  frequent 
occasion  during  his  exile  to  hear  the  hymns  of  the  Christians  sung 
in  their  churches.  His  hymns  (either  all,  or  some)  were  written 
for  the  public  liturgical  service,  a  fact  quite  reconcilable  with  the 
opinion  of  Christian  antiquity  that  made  St.  Ambrose  the  father  of 
Christian  hymns  in  the  West  (§  90,  8).  After  all,  the  efforts  of 
Hilary  to  introduce  the  hymn-service  proved  almost  fruitless;  he  was 
obliged  to  admit4  that  his  fellow-citizens  of  Gaul  were  not  desirous 
of  knowing  more  about  his  hymns :  in  hymnorum  carmine  indociles. 

6.  CHRISTOLOGICAL  DOCTRINE.  —  The  writings  of  Hilary  are 
dominated  by  one  leading  thought:  the  defence  and  illustration  of 
the  faith  of  Christians  in  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ.  He  looks 
upon  this  doctrine  as  the  very  corner-stone  of  the  Church5:  Haec 
fides  ecclesiae  fundamentum  est,  per  hanc  fidem  infirmes  adversus 
earn  sunt  portae  inferorum,  haec  fides  regni  coelestis  habet  claves6. 
In  his  speculative  argument  he  dwells  with  especial  interest  on 
the  eternal  generation  of  the  Son  by  the  Father:  Quis  dubitat 
quin  indifferentem  naturam  nativitas  consequatur?  Hinc  enim  est  sola 

1  Mt.  ix.  2  ff .  2  De  viris  ill.,  c.   100.  3  De  eccl.  off.,  i.  6. 

4  Hier.,  Comm.  in  Gal.,  lib.  ii.,  init.  5  Mt.  xvi.   13  ff. 

6  De  trin.,  vi.  37. 


§    86.      ST.    HILARY    OF    POITIERS.  4O9 

ilia  quae  vere  esse  possit  aequalitas  1.  The  unity  of  the  divine  nature 
is  not  affected  by  the  personal  properties  of  fatherhood  and  sonship 
respectively,  for  they  are  essentially  connected  with  the  act  of  gene- 
ration :  Licet  paternae  nuncupationis  proprietas  differat,  tarnen  natura 
non  differt :  natus  enim  a  Deo  Deus  non  dissimilis  est  a  gignente 
substantia2.  Though  the  Son  is  God  from  all  eternity,  He  became 
man  in  time:  Hunc  igitur  assumpsisse  corpus  et  hominem  factum 
esse  perfecta  confessio  est  .  .  .  ut  sicut  Dei  filium,  ita  et  filium  hominis 
meminerimus:  quia  alterum  sine  altero  nihil  spei  tribuit  ad  salutem3. 
He  often  reminds  his  readers  that  God  the  Son  took  the  two  essential 
elements  of  our  human  nature,  a  body  and  a  soul:  Naturam  in  se 
universae  carnis  assumpsit4;  nostri  corporis  atque  animae  homo5;  carnis 
atque  animae  homo  ac  Deus,  habens  in  se  et  totum  verumque  quod 
homo  est  et  totum  verumque  quod  Deus  est8.  This  incarnation  of 
the  Logos  is  explained  in  two  ways.  The  Son  of  God  had  to  put 
off  the  forma  Dei:  In  forma  servi  veniens  evacuavit  se  ex  Dei 
forma,  nam  in  forma  hominis  exsistere  manens  in  Dei  forma  qui 
potuit  ? 7  Theologians  have  asked  themselves  what  Hilary  meant  by  the 
evacuatio  ex  Dei  forma.  The  commentary  on  the  sixty-eighth  Psalm 
shows  with  sufficient  clearness  that  Hilary  speaks  of  the  voluntary 
renunciation  by  the  Logos,  during  His  life  on  earth,  of  the  public 
manifestation  and  splendor  that  belong  by  right  to  Him  as  God : 
Aboleri  Dei  forma,  ut  tantum  servi  esset  forma,  non  potuit.  Ipse 
enim  est  et  se  ex  forma  Dei  inaniens  et  formam  hominis  assumens, 
quia  neque  evacuatio  ilia  ex  Dei  forma  naturae  caelestis  interitus  est, 
neque  formae  servilis  assumptio  tanquam  genuinae  originis  conditionis- 
que  natura  est8.  To  the  self-debasement  of  the  Son  of  God  cor- 
responds, however,  an  elevation  of  human  nature.  The  manhood  of 
Jesus  Christ  is  of  heavenly  origin:  Primus  enim  homo  de  limo  terrae; 
et  secundus  Adam  in  huius  limi  profundum  de  caelis  descendens  se 
ipsum  tamquam  ex  alto  veniens  defixit9.  Through  His  own  power 
the  Logos  took  His  own  body  from  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  created 
His  own  soul  out  of  nothing:  Ut  per  se  sibi  assumpsit  ex  virgine 
corpus,  ita  ex  se  sibi  animam  assumpsit10.  The  body  of  the  Lord 
is  a  celestial  body  (caeleste  corpus)11,  and  therefore  endowed  with 
extraordinary  excellencies.  It  is  true,  according  to  Hilary,  that  it 
shares  whatever  is  essential  to  our  human  bodies:  there  can  be  no 
question  of  the  reality  of  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ.  Never- 
theless, by  its  constitution  the  body  of  Christ  was  in  every  way  superior 
to  all  human  needs  (of  food  and  rest)  and  to  all  sense  of  pain  and 
sorrow;    it  was  only  by  a  voluntary  act  of  self-humiliation   that   the 

1  Ib.,  vii.    15.  2  In  Ps,   cxxxviii.   17.  3  In  Mt.  xvi.   5. 

4  In  Ps.  li.    16.  5  In  Ps.  liii.  8.  6  De  trin.,  x.   19. 

7  In  Ps.  lxviii.   25;  cf.  Phil.   ii.  6  —  7.  8  In  Ps.  lxviii.   25. 

9  In  Ps.  lxviii.  4.  10  De  trin.,  x.   22.  »  Ib.,  x.   18. 


410  SECOND    PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 

Lord  took  on  Him  the  conditions  of  our  enfeebled  state.  According 
to  Hilary,  therefore,  the  transfiguration  on  Tabor  and  the  walking 
on  the  waves  of  Genesareth  are  not  miracles,  as  is  usually  said,  but 
forms  of  life  and  self-revelation  natural  to  the  body  of  the  Lord. 
Christ  was  not  only  free,  at  any  moment,  to  exhibit  His  body  trans- 
figured in  glory  and  to  withdraw  it  from  all  contact  with  suffering 
and  the  law  of  death,  but  it  always  required  a  special  interference 
of  His  divine  will  to  divest  His  body  of  its  natural  immunity  from 
all  human  weakness,  and  subordinate  it  to  the  influences  of  inimical 
forces:  Naturae  enim  propriae  ac  suae  corpus  illud  est,  quod  in 
caelestem  gloriam  conformatur  in  monte,  quod  attactu  suo  fugat 
febres,  quod  de  sputo  suo  format  oculos 1,  and  again :  Non  ambiguum 
est  in  natura  eius  corporis  infirmitatem  naturae  corporeae  non  fuisse, 
cui  in  virtute  naturae  fuerit  omnem  corporum  depellere  infirmitatem2. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  teaching  puts  in  a  new  light  the 
free  and  meritorious  character  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ;  at  the 
same  time  it  is  also  true  that  such  teaching  «makes  a  very  sharp 
turn  around  the  headland  of  Docetism». 

7.     COMPLETE     AND     PARTIAL    EDITIONS.       VERSIONS     AND    RECENSIONS.    

The  first  complete  editions  of  Hilary  were  published  by  D.  Erasmus,  Basel, 
1523  (1526  1553);  L.  Miraeus,  Paris,  1544;  M.  Lipsius,  Basel,  1550  (1570). 
The  Benedictine  P.  Constant  (f  1721)  opened  a  new  epoch  in  the  critical 
study  of  the  writings  of  Hilary.  His  edition  (Paris,  1693)  merits  a  place 
of  eminence  among  all  the  Maurine  editions ;  an  improved  edition  was  made 
by  the  Marchese  Scipione  Maffei,  Verona,  1730  (Venice,  1749 — 1750), 
2  vols.  Maffei  owed  to  new  manuscripts  his  emendations  of  the  text  of 
De  Trinitate  and  of  the  commentary  on  the  Psalms.  The  Migne  edition 
of  Hilary  (PL.,  ix — x,  Paris,  1844 — 1845)  contains  additions  to  the  reprint 
of  Maffei  but  is  otherwise  very  faulty.  G.  Mercati ,  Un  foglio  dell'  Ilario 
papiraceo  di  Vienna  (Bibliotheca  Barberiniana  on  the  text  of  De  Trim, 
iv.  16  17),  in  Note  dr  letteratura  biblica  e  cristiana  antica  (Testi  e 
studi  v),  Rome,  1901,  pp.  99 — 112.  Selected  works  of  St.  Hilary  have 
been  translated  into  German  by  J.  Fisch,  Kempten,  1878  (Bibliothek  der 
Kirchenväter),  and  into  English:  A  select  Library  of  Nicene  and  Post- 
Nicene  Fathers  of  the  Christian  Church,  series  II,  vol.  ix,  New  York, 
1899.  —  The  De  Trinitate  is  reprinted  in  H.  Hurter ,  Ss.  Patr.  opusc. 
sei.,  series  II  4,  Innsbruck,  1888;  cf.  J.  Stix ,  Zum  Sprachgebrauch  des 
hl.  Hilarius  von  Poitiers  in  seiner  Schrift  De  Trinitate  (Progr.),  Rottweil, 
1891.  The  De  Trinitate  is  part  also  of  the  Bibliotheca  Sanctorum  Patrum 
(series  V,  vol.  i — iv),  Rome,  1903 — 1904.  In  the  Vienna  codex  the  De 
Trinitate  is  followed  by  a  mutilated  text  entitled  contra  Arianos.  It  was 
edited  by  M.  Denis,  Codd.  Mss.  theologici  latini  bibliothecae  Palatinae 
Vindobonensis,  Vienna,  1799,  ii  1,  11 02  —  mi  (not  printed  in  Migne), 
and  attributed  by  him  to  Hilary.  On  a  new  edition  of  the  same  see  If.  S. 
Sedlmayer,  Der  Tractatus  contra  Arianos  in  der  Wiener  Hilarius-Handschrift, 
in  Sitzungsberichte  der  k.  Akademie  der  Wiss.  zu  Wien,  philol.-hist.  Klasse 
(1903),  cxlv.  G.  Morin ,  in  Revue  Benedictine  (1903),  xx.  125  — 127,  at- 
tributed it  to  the  Ambrosiaster  whom  he  identifies  with  Hilarianus  Hilarius 
(§  90,   10).     U.  Manucci  has   edited   the  Adversus   haereses  (i — iii)   in  the 

1  De  trin.,  x.  23.  2  Ib.,  x.  35. 


§    86.      ST.    HILARY    OF    POITIERS.  4 1  I 

Bibliotheca  Sanctorum  Patrum  (series  II,  vol.  iii),  Rome,  1907.  —  A.  Zingerle 
published  an  excellent  edition  of  the  commentary  on  the  Psalms,  Vienna,  1891 
(Corpus  script,  eccl.  lat.  xxii) ;  unfortunately  he  missed  a  very  ancient  text- 
witness,  the  Cod.  Lugd.  381  saec.  vi;  consult,  however,  Zingerle' s  study,  Der 
Hilarius-Codex  von  Lyon,  Vienna,  1893,  in  Sitzungsberichte  der  phil.-hist. 
Klasse  der  k.  Akad.  der  Wissensch.  zu  Wien,  cxxviii.  —  Rationem  afferendi 
locos  litterarum  divinarum,  quam  in  tractatibus  super  Psalmos  sequi  videtur 
S.  Hilarius,  illustravit  Fr.  Schellauf,  Gratz,  1898.  The  commentary  on 
the  minor  epistles  of  St.  Paul,  published  by  Pitra  in  1852  under  the  name 
of  St.  Hilary,  is  the  work  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  (§  73,  4).  For  the 
spurious  treatises  on  Matt,  i,  John  i,  and  Matt,  ix,  2  ff.  cf.  A.  Mai,  Nova 
Patrum  Bibl.,  part  I,  Rome,  1852,  i.  477 — 490.  Fr.  Liverani,  Spicilegium 
Liberianum,  Florence,  1863,  pp.  113 — 114,  published  a  spurious  homily 
of  Hilary.  The  pretended  letter  of  St.  Hilary  in  Migne,  PL.,  x.  733—750, 
is  discussed  by  G.  Morin ,  in  Revue  Benedictine  (1898),  xv.  97 — 99.  — 
S.  Hilarii  tractatus  de  mysteriis  et  Hymni  et  S.  Sylviae  Aquitanae  Per- 
egrinatio  ad  loca  sancta.  Quae  inedita  ex  codice  Arretino  deprompsit  J.  F. 
Gamurrini,  Rome,  1887,  in  Biblioteca  dell'  Accademia  storico-giuridica  iv ; 
cf.  §  88,  10  for  the  Peregrinatio  S.  Sylviae.  F.  Cabrol ,  Le  manuscrit 
d'Arezzo.  Ecrits  inedits  de  Saint-Hilaire  et  Pelerinage  d'une  dame  gauloise 
du  IVe  siecle  aux  lieux  saints,  Paris,  1888  (reprint  from  the  Revue  du 
monde  catholique).  —  G.  M.  Dreves ,  Das  Hymnenbuch  des  hl.  Hilarius, 
in  Zeitschr.  f.  kath.  Theol.  (1888),  xii.  358 — 369.  The  hymns  current 
under  the  name  of  Hilary  are  critically  discussed  by  B.  Hoelscher ,  De 
Ss.  Damasi  Papae  et  Hilarii  Episc.  Pictaviensis  qui  feruntur  hymnis  sacris 
(Progr.),  Münster,  1858;  J.  Kayser,  Beiträge  zur  Geschichte  und  Erklärung 
der  ältesten  Kirchenhymnen,  2.  ed.,  Paderborn,  1881,  pp.  52 — 88.  On 
a  new  edition  of  the  hymn  Ad  caeli  clara  non  sum  dignus  sidera  cf.  Pitra, 
Analecta  sacra  et  classica,  Paris,  1888,  part  1,  pp.  138 — 141,  also  Zeitschr. 
f.  kath.  Theol.  (1889),  xiii.  737 — 740.  The  verses  Hymnum  dicat  turba 
fratrum  are  wrongly  attributed  to  Hilary  \  cf.  W.  Meyer,  Das  Turiner  Bruch- 
stück der  ältesten  irischen  Liturgie,  in  Göttinger  Nachrichten,  philol.-hist. 
Klasse  (1903),  pp.  204 — 208.  A.  jf.  Mason,  The  First  Latin  Christian 
Poet,  in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1904),  v.  413 — 432;  Id.,  The  Text  of 
the  Hymn  of  Hilary,  ib.,  v.  636.  A.  S.  Walpole ,  Hymns  attributed  to 
Hilary  of  Poitiers,  in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1905),  vi.  599 — 603. 

8.  works  on  saint  Hilary.  —  Ad.  Viehhauser ,  Hilarius  Pictaviensis 
geschildert  in  seinem  Kampfe  gegen  den  Arianismus,  Klagenfurt,  i860. 
j.  H.  Reinkens,  Hilarius  von  Poitiers,  Schaffhausen,  1864.  Dormagen, 
St.  Hilaire  de  Poitiers  et  l'Arianisme  (These),  Paris,  1864.  V.  Hansen, 
Vie  de  St.  Hilaire,  eveque  de  Poitiers  et  docteur  de  l'eglise,  Luxemburg, 
1875.  Largent,  St.  Hilaire,' Paris ,  1802  (Les  Saints),  y.  B.  Wirthmilller , 
Die  Lehre  des  hl.  Hilarius  von  Poitiers  über  die  Selbstentäusserung  Christi, 
verteidigt  gegen  die  Entstellungen  neuerer  protestantischer  Theologen, 
Ratisbon,  1865.  Baltzer ,  Die  Theologie  des  hl.  Hilarius  von  Poitiers 
(Progr.),  Rottweil,  1879.  Id.,  Die  Christologie  des  hl.  Hilarius  von  Poitiers 
(Progr.),  ib.,  1889.  A.  Beck,  Die  Trinitätslehre  des  hl.  Hilarius  von  Poitiers, 
in  Forschungen  zur  Litt.-  und  Dogmengeschichte,  Mainz,  1903,  iii.  2 — 3. 
Id. ,  Kirchliche  Studien  und  Quellen,  Amberg,  1903,  pp.  82 — 102:  Die 
Lehre  des  hl.  Hilarius  von  Poitiers  über  die  Leidensfähigkeit  des  Leibes 
Christi.  Th.  Förster ,  T^uv  Theologie  des  Hilarius,  in  Theol.  Studien  und 
Kritiken  (1888),  lxi.  645 — 686.  y.  A.  Quillacq ,  Quomodo  latina  lingua 
usus  sit  S.  Hilarius  Pictav.  episc.  (These),  Tours,  1903.  R.  de  la  Broise, 
Saint  Hilaire,  in  Dictionnaire  de  la  Bible,  Paris,  1903,  iii.  707 — 712. 


412  SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

9.  arian  literature.  —  Under  the  name  of  Potamius,  Arian  bishop 
of  Olisipo  (Lisbon),  the  author  of  the  second  formula  of  Sirmium  of  the 
year  357,  concisely  defined  as  a  blasphemia  by  Hilary,  there  are  current 
three  brief  writings:  Tractatus  de  Lazaro,  Tractatus  de  martyrio  Isaiae 
prophetae,  Epistola  ad  Athanasium  (Gal/andi,  Bibl.  vet.  Patr.,  v.  96 — 99; 
Migne,  PL.,  viii.  1411  — 1418).  The  letter  to  Athanasius,  however,  pro- 
fesses the  faith  of  the  latter,  and  must  have  been  written  while  Potamius 
still  adhered  to  the  Nicene  faith ;  cf.  Schoenemann,  Bibl.  hist.-litt.  Patr.  lat, 
i.  307 — 309.  P.  B.  Gams,  Die  Kirchengeschichte  von  Spanien,  Ratisbon, 
1864,  ii  1,  315—317.  —  The  Arian  Candidus  left  a  treatise  De  genera- 
tione  divina,  and  a  letter,  both  addressed  to  the  rhetorician  Marius  Victo- 
rinus  (§  87,  8),  and  published  among  the  works  of  the  latter  {Migne,  PL., 
viii.  1013 — 1020  1035 — 1040).  Clearly  Arian  in  origin  and  tendency  are  the 
fragments  of  a  commentary  on  Luke  (pp.  191  —  207)  and  dogmatic  treatises 
(pp.  208 — 237)  found  by  Mai,  in  codices  rescripti,  and  published  by  him 
(Script,  vet.  nova  Coll.,  Rome,  1828,  part  2,  iii.  186 — 237:  reprinted  in 
Migne,  1.  c,  xiii.  593 — 628).  It  is  probable  that  the  commentary  on  Luke 
was  composed  about  370  by  Ulfilas,  the  apostle  of  the  Goths  (f  383),  and 
the  dogmatic  treatises  by  his  disciple  Auxentius,  bishop  of  Dorostorum 
(Silistria).  Cf.  G.  L.  Krafft ,  Commentatio  historica  de  fontibus  Ulfilae 
arianismi  ex  fragmentis  Bobiensibus  erutis  (Progr.),  Bonn,  i860.  G.  Mer- 
cati,  Antiche  reliquie  liturgiche  (Studii  e  testi  vii),  Rome,  1902,  pp.  47 — 71. 
A  fifth-century  Paris  manuscript,  written  by  a  later  hand  on  the  margins 
of  some  loose  leaves,  contains  a  Dissertatio  Maximini  contra  Ambrosium 
and  a  correlated  text,  known  as  Epistola  Auxentii  Dorostorensis  de  fide, 
vita  et  obitu  Ulfilae.  These  texts  were  partially  made  known  by  G.  Waitz, 
Über  das  Leben  und  die  Lehre  des  Ulfila,  Hannover,  1840;  they  are 
printed  entire,  as  far  as  legible,  by  Fr.  Kauffmann ,  in  his  Texte  und 
Untersuchungen  zur  altgermanischen  Religionsgesch.,  Strassburg,  1899,  i. 
Cf.  L.  Saltet,  Un  texte  nouveau :  la  Dissertatio  Maximini  contra  Ambrosium, 
in  Bulletin  de  litterature  ecclesiastique  (1900),  ii.  118 — 129.  H.  Boehmer- 
Romundt,  Der  literarische  Nachlass  des  Wulfila  und  seiner  Schule,  in  Zeit- 
schrift f.  wissensch.  Theol.  (1903),  xlvi.  233 — 269  361 — 407;  Id.,  Ein  neues 
Werk  des  Wulfila?  in  Neue  Jahrb.  f.  das  klass.  Altertum  (1903),  viii.  272 
to  288.  St.  Augustine  gives  in  his  reply  to  an  anonymous  Quida'm  sermo 
Arianorum  a  brief  exposition  to  the  Arian  doctrine  (cf.  §  94,  7).  —  We 
have  already  said  (§  74,  10)  that  the  so-called  Opus  imperfectum  in  Mat- 
thaeum  is  of  Arian  origin,  as  is  likewise  the  Anonymus  in  Job  (cf.  the 
works  of  Origen,  Migne,  PG.,  xvii.  371 — 522)  and  §  61,  1  to  which  section 
mention  of  it  properly  belongs. 

§  87.     Other  opponents  of  Arianism. 

I.  HOSIUS  OF  CORDOVA.  —  He  was  one  of  the  most  famous, 
but  also  one  of  the  most  persecuted,  among  the  Western  champions 
of  the  Catholic  faith  during  the  conflict  with  Arianism.  This  great 
Christian,  who  was  probably  president  of  the  Council  of  Nicaea,  was 
born  about  256,  and  became  bishop  of  Corduba  (Cordova  in  Southern 
Spain)  in  296,  and  died  Aug.  27.,  357.  He  may  be  justly  called  the 
Athanasius  of  the  West  (§  86,  1).  He  labored  for  the  faith  more  by 
word  and  deeds  than  by  his  writings.     In  his  Historia  Arianorum1 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xxv.   744 — 748;   cf.  PL.,  viii.    1327  — 1331. 


§    87.      OTHER    OPPONENTS    OF    ARIANISM.  4I3 

Athanasius  made  known  a  letter  in  Greek  of  the  brave  old  martyr 
of  the  faith,  written  in  354  or  355  to  the  emperor  Constantius,  frank 
and  bold  in  its  confession  of  the  Catholic  faith,  but  moderate  in  form. 
Isidore  of  Seville  says  *  that  he  wrote  an :  Epistola  ad  sororem  suam 
de  laude  virginitatis,  and  an :  Opus  de  interpretatione  vestium  sacer- 
dotalium  quae  sunt  in  Veteri  Testamento.  Pitra  published  in  1888 
49  short  sentences  under  the  title :  Doctrina  Hosii  episcopi  de  ob- 
servatione  disciplinae  Dominicae. 

The  Doctrina  is  found  in  Pitra,  Analecta  sacra  et  classica,  Paris,  1888, 
part  i,  p.  117.  P.  B.  Gams,  Die  Kirchengeschichte  von  Spanien,  Ratisbon, 
1864,  ii  1,   137 — 309:  Hosius  von  Corduba. 

2.  LUCIFER  OF  CALARIS.  —  Lucifer,  bishop  of  Calaris  or  Caralis 
(Cagliari  in  Sardinia),  was  sent  in  354  by  Pope  Liberius  on  an  em- 
bassy to  the  military  quarters  of  the  emperor  Constantius  at  Aries. 
At  the  Synod  of  Milan  (355)  he  refused  to  condemn  St.  Athanasius 
or,  as  St.  Jerome2  puts  it:  sub  nomine  Athanasii  Nicaenam  fidem. 
Consequently  he  was  banished  by  Constantius  to  the  East,  whence 
he  did  not  return  until  the  reign  of  Julian  (361 — 363).  During  his 
exile  (§  86,  3)  and  especially  after  his  return,  Lucifer  became  involved 
in  conflicts  with  his  former  friends  and  allies  in  the  episcopate.  By 
the  consecration  of  a  new  bishop  (Paulinus)  of  Antioch  he  not  only 
failed  to  heal  the  existing  schism,  but  increased  its  bitterness.  The 
mild  and  conciliatory  measures  of  the  Synod  of  Alexandria  (362) 
with  regard  to  the  penitent  Arians  were  so  little  to  his  taste  that 
he  seems  to  have  broken  off  communion  with  the  members  of  that 
Synod.  It  is  certain  that  those  who  after  his  death  (370  or  371) 
advocated  the  exclusion  of  former  Arians  from  all  church  offices 
adopted  the  name  of  Luciferians ;  their  schism,  however,  was  of  short 
duration.  —  During  his  exile  (356 — 361),  Lucifer  composed  several 
works,  and  addressed  them  to  the  emperor  Constantius.  They  were 
probably  written  in  the  following  order:  De  non  conveniendo  cum 
haereticis3,  in  proof  of  the  thesis  that  the  orthodox  must  avoid  all 
communion  with  the  Arians;  De  regibus  apostaticis 4 ,  against  the 
assertion  of  Constantius  that  the  felicity  of  his  reign  was  a  proof 
of  divine  approval,  for  many  an  impious  and  God-forgetting  king  of 
Israel  had  enjoyed  long  life  and  great  prosperity;  De  Sancto  Athanasio 
(originally  perhaps  entitled:  Quia  absentem  nemo  debet  iudicare  nee 
damnare)  liber  I — II5,  written  to  demonstrate  the  supreme  injustice 
of  the  imperial  order  to  the  bishops  at  Milan  to  condemn  Athanasius 
unheard.  Apropos  of  these  three  works  arose  very  probably  the 
correspondence  between  Lucifer  and  Florentius,  an  officer  of  the 
emperor's  household6.    Through  the  latter  the  emperor  asks  Lucifer 

1  De  viris  ill.,  c.   5.  2  De  viris  ill.,  c.  95. 

3  Migne,  PL.,  xiii.   767 — 794.  4  Ib.,  xiii.   793 — 818. 

5  Ib.,  xiii.  817 — 936.  G  Ib.,  xiii.  935 — 936. 


4I4  SECOND    PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 

if  he  be  the  author  of  the  said  invectives,  and  Lucifer  replies  with 
pride  in  the  affirmative.  Perhaps  there  is  some  connexion  between  this 
correspondence  and  the:  De  non  parcendo  in  Deum  delinquentibus1, 
in  which  Lucifer  essays  a  justification  of  his  language  toward  the 
emperor;  he  quotes  principally  the  examples  of  the  prophets  of  the 
Old  Testament.  Finally,  not  earlier  than  360,  and  perhaps  in  361, 
he.  wrote  the:  Moriendum  esse  pro  Dei  filio2,  in  which  he  manifests 
his  great  desire  for  the  death  of  a  martyr.  Several  letters  have  been 
lost.  A  baptismal  discourse  entitled:  Exhortatio  S.  Ambrosii  episc. 
ad  neophytos  de  symbolo,  attributed  to  Lucifer,  and  edited  (1869) 
by  Caspari,  is  of  doubtful  provenance.  —  The  chief  characteristic 
of  Lucifer  is  his  very  discourteous  language  toward  the  emperor. 
His  vocabulary  is  largely  taken  from  the  current  language  of  the 
people;  at  the  same  time  any  connexion  of  thought  is  entirely  lacking. 
There  is  no  better  representative  of  the  Latin  folk -speech  of  his 
day;  by  reason,  moreover,  of  the  very  great  copiousness  of  his 
scriptural  quotations,  he  is  an  important  witness  to  the  pre-Hiero- 
nymian  Bible-text. 

The  certainly  genuine  works  of  Lucifer  have  come  down  by  means  of 
a  single  manuscript  (cod.  Vat.  133,  saec.  ix  or  x).  The  editio  princeps  is 
owing  toy.  Tilius,  bishop  of  Meaux,  Paris,  1568  (Gallandi,  Bibl.  vet.  Patr. 
[1770],  vi.  153 — 260).  A  better  edition  was  brought  out  by  the  brothers 
J.  D.  and  J.  Coleti,  Venice,  1778,  reprinted  in  Migne ,  PL.,  xiii.  1845. 
The  most  recent  and  best  edition  is  that  of  W.  Hartel ,  Vienna,  1886 
(Corpus  script,  eccles.  lat.  xiv).  Cf.  Hartel,  Lucifer  von  Cagliari  und  sein 
Latein,  in  Archiv  für  lat.  Lexikogr.  u.  Gramm.  (1886),  iii.  1 — 58,  also 
G.  Krüger,  Lucifer,  Bischof  von  Calaris,  und  das  Schisma  der  Luciferianer, 
Leipzig,  1886.  The  baptismal  discourse  is  in  C.  P.  Caspari,  Ungedruckte 
Quellen  zur  Gesch.  des  Taufsymbols  und  der  Glaubensregel,  Christiania, 
1869,  ii.  132 — 140,  and  also  in  Alte  und  neue  Quellen,  Christiania,  1879, 
pp.  186—195.  Krüger  undertakes  (1.  c,  pp.  118— 130)  to  prove  against 
Caspari  in  his  first  work  (pp.  175 — 182)  that  the  real  author  of  the  baptis- 
mal discourse  is  Eusebius  of  Vercellae  (see  no.  9). 

3.  FAUSTINUS  AND  MARCELLINUS.  —  A  priest  named  Faustinus, 
of  the  party  of  the  Luciferians,  but  otherwise  unknown  to  us, 
presented  to  the  emperor  Theodosius  at  Constantinople,  probably  in 
the  autumn  of  383,  a  profession  of  faith,  in  order  to  free  himself 
from  the  charge  of  Sabellianism :  Fides  Theodosio  imp.  oblata3. 
Together  with  another  priest  and  sympathizer  named  Marcellinus,  he 
presented  to  Valentinian  II.,  Theodosius  and  Arcadius,  a  memorial  in 
favor  of  the  persecuted  Luciferians :  Libellus  precum  ad  imperatores  4. 
At  the  request  of  the  empress  Flaccilla  he  also  wrote  about  384  an 
anti-Arian  exposition  of  the  Catholic  Trinitarian  faith:  De  trinitate 
sive  de  fide  contra  Arianos5. 

1  Migne,  PL.,  xiii.   935—1008.  2  Ib.,  xiii.    1007— 1038. 

3  Ib.,  xiii.   79 — 80.  4  Ib.,  xiii.   83 — 107. 

5  Ib.,  xiii.  37—80. 


§    87.      OTHER    OPPONENTS    OF    ARIANISM.  4I5 

The  Migne  text  of  these  writings  is  taken  from  Gallandi  (Bibl.  vet. 
Patr.,  vii.  439 — 474).  The  Libellus  precum,  probably  called  by  its  authors 
De  confessione  verae  fidei  et  ostentatione  sacrae  communionis  et  persecu- 
tione  adversantium  veritati  is  also  found  in  the  Collectio  Avellana,  ed. 
O.  Guenther  (Vienna,  1895 — 1898:  Corpus  script,  eccles.  lat.  xxxv),  pp.  5 
to  44;  cf.  Guenther,  Avellana-Studien  (Vienna,  1896),  pp.  69 — 86.  For 
the  history  of  Faustinus  and  Marcellinus  see  G.  Krüger ,  Lucifer,  Bischof 
von  Calaris,  pp.  62 — 63  82 — 86  94 — 96. 

4.  GREGORY  OF  ELIBERIS.  —  After  Lucifer  the  principal  leader 
of  the  Luciferian  faction  was  Gregory,  bishop  of  Eliberis  in  Baetica 
(Elvira  near  Granada),  f  after  392.  St.  Jerome  says1  that  he  composed: 
diversos  mediocri  sermone  tractatus  et  de  fide  elegantem  librum. 
The  latter  work  is  probably  identical  with :  De  fide  orthodoxa  contra 
Arianos2,  a  polemic  against  the  decision  of  the  Synod  of  Rimini 
(359),  by  others  attributed  to  Phoebadius,  bishop  of  Agen  (see  no.  6). 

For  Gregory  of  Eliberis  see  Gams ,  Die  Kirchengesch.  von  Spanien, 
Ratisbon,  1864,  ii  1,  31° — 314*,  Krüger,  Lucifer  etc.,  pp.  76 — 80.  In  the 
Revue  d'histoire  et  de  literature  religieuses  (1900),  v.  145 — 161.  G.  Morin 
not  only  defends  Gregory's  authorship  of  the  De  fide  orthodoxa  contra 
Arianos,  but  also  attributes  to  him  the  first  seven  of  the  twelve  books  De 
trinitate  {Migne,  PL.,  lxii.  237 — 334)  among  the  works  of  Vigilius  of  Tapsus, 
and  the  Tractatus  Origenis  de  libris  SS.  Scripturarum,  published  in  1900 
by  P.  Batiffol  (§  55,  4).  Against  Morin  cf.  Batiffol,  in  Bulletin  de  littera- 
ture  ecclesiastique  (1900),  pp.  190 — 197,  and  for  Morin  s  reply  the  Revue 
Benedictine  (1902),  xix.  225 — 245.  In  this  latter  study  Morin  abandons 
the  Gregorian  authorship  of  the  De  Trinitate,  and  identifies  it  with  the 
Libri  septem  de  fide  et  regulis  fidei,  current  under  the  name  of  Syagrius 
(§  89,  3).  The  De  fide  orthodoxa  contra  Arianos  is  also  printed  among 
the  works  of  Vigilius  of  Tapsus  {Migne,  PL.,  lxii.  466 — 468  449—463) 
and  among  those  of  St.  Ambrose  (Ib.,  PL.,  xvii.  549 — 568). 

5.  HILARY  OF  ROME.  —  Hilarius,  a  Roman  deacon  (f  before  379), 
surpassed  Lucifer  in  his  extreme  views ;  he  would  rebaptize  all  Arians 
and  wrote  on  the  subject  certain :  Libellos  de  haereticis  rebaptizandis, 
known  to  St.  Jerome3,  through  whose  pages  alone  we  know  these 
details  of  the  writer's  life. 

For  Hilarius  of  Rome  cf.  Krüger,  1.  c,  pp.  88 — 89. 

6.  PHOEBADIUS  OF  AGEN.  —  This  writer  was  no  less  strong  in 
character  than  Lucifer  of  Calaris,  but  more  calm  and  self-possessed. 
He  was  bishop  of  Agennum  in  Aquitania  Secunda  (Agen  in  Guyenne) 
and  died  after  392.  He  wrote  a  very  severe  criticism  of  the  second 
Sirmian  formula  of  the  year  357:  Liber  Contra  Arianos4.  The:  De 
fide  orthodoxa  contra  Arianos 5,  goes  also  under  his  name ;  we  have 
seen,  however,  that  it  is  probably  the  work  of  Gregory  of  Eliberis 
(see  no.  4).     Phoebadius  also  left  a  Profession  of  faith6. 

1  De  viris  ill.,  c.    105.  2  Migne,  PL.,  xx.  31  —  50. 

3  Bier.,  Altercatio  Luciferiani  et  orthodoxi,  c.   27. 

4  Migne,  PL.,  xx.   13 — 30.  5  Ib.,  xx.  31 — 50.  6  Ib.,  xx.  49 — 50. 


416  SECOND    PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 

For  the  text  of  these  works  cf.  Migne  (1.  c.)  who  reprints  them  from 
Gallandi  (Bibl.  vet.  Patr.  [1769],  v.  250—265).  The  contents  of  the  Liber 
contra  Arianos  is  discussed  by  J.  Dräseke,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  kirchl.  Wissen- 
schaft u.  kirchl.  Leben  (1889),  x.  335—343  391—407,  also  in  Zeitschr.  f. 
wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1890),  xxxiii.  78 — 98  (contributions  to  the  criticism 
of  the  text).  G.  Mercati,  Antiche  reliquie  liturgiche  ambrosiane  e  romane 
(in  Studi  e  Testi  vii),  Rome,   1902,  p.  68,  n.   1. 

7.  AN  ANONYMOUS.  —  Highly  interesting  is  the:  Altercatio  Heracli- 
ani  laici  cum  Germinio  episcopo  Sirmiensi  de  fide  synodi  Nicaenae 
et  Ariminensis  Arianorum,  first  edited  by  Caspari,  in  1883.  In  this 
work  the  layman  Heraclianus  makes  a  brilliant  defence  of  the  Nicene 
faith  against  Germinius,  the  Arian  bishop  of  Sirmium  (f  ca.  370). 
The  dialogue  is  not  a  bit  of  tendentious  theological  fiction,  but  the 
summary  of  a  real  historical  colloquy,  written  about  366  by  a  lay- 
man, and  in  a  style  quite  fresh  and  spontaneous. 

The  Altercatio  is  published  in  C.  P.  Caspari,  Kirchenhistorische  Anec- 
dota,  Christiania,   1883,  i.   131  — 147;  cf.  pp.  v — viii. 

8.  MARIUS  VICTORINUS.  —  Caius  Marius  Victorinus,  born  in  Africa, 
was  one  of  the  most  famous  of  the  Roman  rhetoricians  in  the  reign 
of  Constantius;  his  statue  was  erected  in  the  Forum  of  Trajan  as  a 
mark  of  the  popular  esteem.  He  was  well-advanced  in  years  when 
he  became  a  Christian.  In  his  heathen  days  he  had  written  many 
works:  grammatical,  metrical,  rhetorical,  and  philosophical.  St.  Jerome 
tells  us1  that  as  a  Christian  he  wrote:  Adversus  Arium  libros  more 
dialectico  valde  obscuros,  qui  nisi  ab  eruditis  non  intelleguntur,  et 
commentarios  in  apostolum.  There  are  current  under  his  name  three 
anti- Arian  works:  Adversus  Arium  libri  iv. 2,  De  generatione  divini 
Verbi3,  and  De  bfjLoouaUo  recipiendo4;  the  first  two  are  addressed 
to  a  certain  Candidus  (§  86,  9),  an  Arian  friend  of  the  author.  None 
of  these  works  are  in  any  way  important.  Some  of  his  commentaries 
on  St.  Paul's  Epistles  have  been  preserved;  those  on  Galatians5, 
Philippians 6,  and  Ephesians7,  apropos  of  which  St.  Jerome  remarks 
that  the  learned  rhetorician  was  entirely  lacking  in  theological  train- 
ing: quod  occupatus  ille  eruditione  saecularium  litterarum  scripturas 
omnino  sanctas  ignoraverit 8.  Two  of  his  writings  are  anti-Manichaean 
in  character:  Ad  Justinum  Manichaeum,  contra  duo  principia  Mani- 
chaeorum  et  de  vera  carne  Christi9  and  De  verbis  scripturae  «Factum 
est  vespere  et  mane,  dies  unus10.  The  treatise  De  physicis11,  in  defence 
of  the  biblical  account  of  creation,  is  spurious.  Three  hymns:  De 
trinitate12,  and  three  other  Christian  poems  must  also  be  considered 

1  De  viris  ill.,  c.   101.  2  Migne,  PL.,  viii.    1039 — 1138. 

3  Ib.,  viii.    1019— 1036.  4  Ib.,  viii.    1137 — 1140. 

5  Ib.,  viii.    1 145  — 1 198.  6  Ib.,  viii.    1 197— 1236. 

7  Ib.,  viii.    1235 — 1294.  8  Comm.  in  Gal.,  praef. 

9  Migne,  PL.,  viii.  999 — 1010.  ,0  Ib.,  viii.    1009 — 1014. 

11  Ib.,  viii.    1295 — 1310.  12  Ib.,  viii.    1 139 — 1146. 


§    87.      OTHER    OPPONENTS    OF    ARIANISM.  41/ 

spurious;  the  poems:  De  pascha  seu  De  ligno  vitae  seu  De  cruce 
(69  hexameters),  an  enthusiastic  description  of  the  Cross  as  the  tree 
of  life;  De  Jesu  Christo  Deo  et  homine  (137  hexameters),  on  the 
earthly  life  of  our  Lord;  De  martyrio  Maccabaeorum  (394  hexa- 
meters), an  attempt  at  a  panegyrico  -  rhetorical  dramatization  of  the 
scriptural  narrative  in  the  seventh  chapter  of  the  second  book  of 
Maccabees. 

According  to  H.  Usener,  Anecdoton  Holderi,  Bonn,  1877,  PP-  59 — 66, 
the  work  De  definitione  among  the  writings  of  Boethius  on  logic  (Migne, 
PL.,  lxiv,  891 — 910)  was  composed  by  Marius  Victorinus.  A  critical  edition 
of  it  is  owing  to  Th.  Stangl,  Tulliana  et  Mario-Victoriniana  (Progr.),  Munich, 
1888,  pp.  12 — 48.  On  Marius  Victorinus  as  rhetorician  see  Teuffel-Schwabe, 
Gesch.  der  röm.  Lit.,  5.  ed.,  pp.  1031 — 1034.  —  For  the  hymns  and  other 
poems  attributed  to  him  cf.  M.  Manitius,  Gesch.  der  christlich-lateinischen 
Poesie,  Stuttgart,  1891,  pp.  113  — 119.  The  De  pascha  is  found  in  the 
Hartel  edition  of  the  works  of  Cyprian  (part  III,  pp.  305 — 308).  The  De 
martyrio  Maccabaeorum  and  two  other  poems,  In  Genesin  ad  Leonem 
papam  (a  paraphrase  in  204  hexameters  of  the  story  of  the  creation)  and 
De  Evangelio  (114  hexameters  on  the  birth  of  Christ),  were  edited  recently 
by  R.  Peiper,  Cypriani  Galli  poetae  Heptateuchos,  Vienna,  1891  (Corpus 
script,  eccl.  lat.  xxxiii)  231 — 274;  they  are  attributed  in  this  work  to  a 
certain  Hilarius  said  to  have  lived  in  Gaul  during  the  fifth  century,  but 
certainly  not  identical  with  Hilary  of  Aries  (§  96,  3). 

For  the  poem  In  Genesin  cf.  St.  Gamber,  Le  livre  de  la  Genese  dans 
la  poesie  latine  du  Ve  siecle,  Paris,  1899.  —  Among  the  writers  on  Victo- 
rinus are  G.  Koffmane,  De  Mario  Victorino  philosopho  christiano  (Dissert, 
inaug.),  Breslau,  1880;  G.  Geiger,  C.  Marius  Victorinus  Afer,  ein  neu- 
platonischer Philosoph  (2  Progr.),  Metten,  1888  1889;  R.  Schmid ,  Marius 
Viktorinus  Rhetor  und  seine  Beziehungen  zu  Augustin  (Inaug. -Diss.),  Kiel, 
1895.  Muehlenstein ,  Philosoph.  Vorfragen  über  die  mittelalterlichen  An- 
schauungen vom  Schönen  und  vom  Rhythmus,  in  Gregorianische  Rund- 
schau (1902),  pp.  72 — 75. 

9.  EUSEBIUS  OF  VERCELL^E.  —  Eusebius,  in  340  bishop  of 
Vercellae  (Vercelli),  was  requested  by  Pope  Liberius  to  accompany 
Lucifer  of  Calaris  on  his  embassy  to  the  emperor  Constantius.  After 
the  synod  of  Milan  (355)  he,  too,  was  exiled  to  the  East  whence 
he  returned  under  Julian  and  thenceforth  labored  actively  to  uproot 
Arianism  in  his  diocese.  He  died  in  371,  highly  esteemed,  and  is 
honored  by  the  Church  as  a  martyr  (confessor,  Dec.  16.).  Only 
three  letters  of  Eusebius  have  reached  us  I.  His  Latin  version  of  the 
commentary  of  Eusebius  of  Caesarea  on  the  Psalms,  often  mentioned 
by  St.  Jerome2,  has  perished  (§  62,  3). 

For  the  baptismal  sermon  attributed  to  our  Saint  by  G.  Krüger  see 
above  no.  2.  A  long  profession  of  faith  attributed  to  him  (De  s.  Trinitate 
confessio;  Migne.  PL.,  xii.  959 — 968)  is  spurious.  The  archives  of  the 
Cathedral  of  Vercelli  contain  a  Gospel-codex,  said  on  the  authority  of  old 
and  trustworthy  witnesses  to  have  been  written  by  the  hand  of  St.  Eusebius ; 

1  Migne,  PL.,  xii.  947 — 954;  x.    713  —  714. 

2  De  viris  ill.,   c.  96;   Ep.  61,   2. 

Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  27 


41 8  SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

it  is  one  of  the  most  important  witnesses  to  the  pre-Hieronymian  Latin 
text  (Cod.  a) ;  cf.  the  new  edition  of  Belsheim :  Codex  Vercellensis.  Quat- 
tuor  evangelia  ante  Hieronymum  latine  translata  ex  reliquiis  codicis  Ver- 
cellensis saeculo  ut  videtur  iv.  scripti  et  ex  editione  Iriciana  principe  denuo 
edidit  J.  Belsheim,  Christiania,  1894.  In  the  Journal  of  Theological  Studies 
(1900 — 1901),  i.  592 — 599,  E.  A.  Burn  attributes  to  our  Eusebius  the 
Quicumque  (§  66,  3),  and  the  De  trinitate  of  the  pseudo-Vigilius  of  Tapsus. 
On  Eusebius  and  the  authorities  for  his  life  see  F.  Savio ,  Gli  antichi 
vescovi  d' Italia  (Piemonte),  Turin,  1899,  pp.  412 — 420  514 — 554.  For 
the  title  of  the  letter  forged  by  Meyranesio  cf.  F.  Savio ,  Le  origini  della 
diocesi  di  Tortona,  in  Atti  della  R.  Accademia  delle  scienze  di  Torino 
(1903),  xxxviii.   10 — 19. 

10.  ZENO  OF  VERONA.  —  We  know  but  little  concerning  St.  Zeno, 
and  that  little  needs  to  be  critically  sifted  and  studied.  In  their 
works:  De  viris  illustrious  both  Jerome  and  Gennadius  ignore  him. 
According  to  the  prevailing  opinion  established  by  the  Ballerini 
brothers  (1739),  Zeno  was  a  native  of  Roman  Africa,  and  eighth 
bishop  of  Verona  (362 — 380).  He  lived  in  a  period  of  continuous 
conflict  with  the  last  representatives  of  paganism,  fearlessly  defended 
the  doctrine  of  the  Church  against  the  Arians,  and  spent  his  life 
in  the  charitable  service  of  the  poor  and  the  sick.  The  Tractatus 
or  sermons  current  under  his  name  have  provoked  much  criticism. 
The  latest  editors  *  acknowledge  93  as  genuine :  1 6  long  and  Jj  short 
treatises;  the  latter,  however,  are  often  so  brief  that  they  look  like 
mere  outlines  or  summaries  of  sermons.  Nevertheless,  in  several  of 
these  Tractatus  are  preserved  precious  evidences  of  the  faith  of  the 
Church  concerning  the  Trinity  and  the  Blessed  Virgin,  others  con- 
tain details  of  value  for  the  science  of  Christian  archaeology.  His 
style  is  strikingly  personal  and  offers  no  little  resemblance  to  that 
of  Apulejus  of  Madaura. 

For  the  earlier  editions  of  the  Tractatus  cf.  Schoenemann ,  Bibl.  hist.- 
lit.  Patr.  lat.  i.  314  fr.  (Migne,  VY,.,  xi.  244  fr.).  The  edition  of  the  brothers 
Pietro  and  Girolamo  Ballerini  was  published  in  1739  at  Verona,  and  was 
reprinted  in  Gallandi ,  Bibl.  vet.  Patr.  v.  105 — 158,  and  in  Migne ,  1.  c. 
Another  edition  based  on  new  manuscripts  was  brought  out  by  Count 
J.  B.  K.  Giuliari,  Verona,  1883,  2-  ecU  i°->  "J*)00-  A  German  version  is 
owing  to  P.  Leipelt,  Kempten,  1877  (Bibl.  der  Kirchenväter).  —  Fr.  A. 
Schütz,  S.  Zenonis  episc.  Veron.  doctrina  Christiana,  Leipzig,  1854.  L.  jf.V. 
Jazdzewski ,  Zeno  Veron.  episc.  Comment,  patrologica,  Ratisbon,  1862. 
A.  Bigelmair ,  Zeno  von  Verona,  Münster,  1904,  On  the  numerous  re- 
miniscences from  writings  of  the  rhetorician  Apulejus  of  Madaura  in  the 
sermons  of  Zeno  cf.  C.  Weyinan ,  in  Sitzungsberichte  der  philos.-philol.  u. 
der  hist.  Klasse  der  kgl.  bayer.  Akad.  d.  Wissensch.  (1893),  ii.  350—359.  — 
Under  the  name  of  the  bishop  Petronius  of  Verona  there  are  current  two 
brief  Sermones  in  natali  S.  Zenonis  and  in  die  ordinationis  vel  natali 
episcopi ;  the  text  may  be  read  in  the  study  of  G.  Morin,  in  Revue  Bene- 
dictine (1897),  xiv.  3 — 8.  Gennadius  (De  viris  ill.,  c.  41)  mentions  a  Pe- 
tronius, bishop  of  Bologna,  in  the  first  half  of  the  fifth  century,  to  whom 

1  Migne,  PL.,  xi.  253 — 528. 


§    88.      POETS    AND    HISTORIANS.  419 

were  attributed  Vitae  patrum  monachorum  Aegypti  and  a  Tractatus  de 
ordinatione  episcopi.  Cf.  Czapla,  Gennadius  als  Literarhistoriker,  Münster, 
1898,  pp.  94  ff. 

§  88.    Poets  and  Historians. 

1.  JUVENCUS.  —  Gajus  Vettius  Aquilinus  Juvencus,  a  Spanish 
priest  of  very  noble  origin,  wrote  about  330  a  kind  of  Gospel- 
harmony  in  hexameter  verse ;  he  entitled  it :  Evangeliorum  libri  quat- 
tuor  (formerly  known  as  Hi  storm  evangelica)1.  In  the  beginning  he 
follows  Luke,  but  throughout  the  rest  of  the  work  adopts  almost 
exclusively  the  text  of  Matthew  as  his  guide,  and  seems  occasionally 
to  compare  the  original  Greek  with  the  Latin  version.  His  diction 
imitates  the  biblical  language  very  closely.  In  spite  of  the  restriction 
thus  imposed  on  himself,  his  verse  is  generally  easy  and  fluent,  and 
shows  an  excellent  grammatical  training  and  no  small  share  of  poetical 
gifts  and  skill.  His  work  was  highly  esteemed  throughout  the  entire 
of  the  Middle  Ages,  and  was  frequently  imitated. 

The  best  editions  of  Juvencus  are  those  of  F.  Arevalo,  Rome,  1792 
[Migne,  1.  c);  C.  Mar  old,  Leipzig,  1886,  and  J.  Huemer,  Vienna,  1891 
(Corpus  script,  eccles.  lat.  xxiv).  —  J.  T.  Hatfield,  A  Study  of  Juvencus 
(Dissert,  inaug.),  Bonn,  1890.  C.  Marold ' ,  Über  das  Evangelienbuch  des 
Juvencus  in  seinem  Verhältnis  zum  Bibeltext,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  wissenschaftl. 
Theol.  (1890),  xxxhi.  329 — 341.  F.  Vivona,  De  Juvenci  poetae  amplifica- 
tionibus,  Palermo,  1903.  For  the  Liber  in  Genesim  (following  in  Migne, 
PL.,  xix.  345 — 380  the  Historia  evang.)  see  below  no.  2.  The  hymn  (Ib., 
xix.  379 — 386 ;  cf.  lxi.  1091 — 1094)  De  laudibus  Domini  glorifies  our 
Lord  as  Creator  of  the  world  and  Redeemer  of  mankind.  Its  148  hexa- 
meters were  probably  composed  before  the  time  of  Juvencus,  by  a  rheto- 
rician of  Augustodonum  (Autun).  A  new  edition  of  it,  with  learned 
apparatus,  is  to  W.  Brandes ,  Über  das  frühchristliche  Gedicht  «Laudes 
Domini»  (Progr.),  Brunswick,  1887.  —  For  other  works  on  Juvencus 
cf.  M.  Manitius,  Gesch.  der  christlich-lateinischen  Poesie,  Stuttgart,  1891, 
pp.  42—44- 

2.  CYPRIANUS  GALLUS.  —  Formerly  Juvencus  was  credited  by 
many  with  a  metrical  recension  of  the  historical  books  of  the  Old 
Testament;  it  is  now  recognized  that  this  work  belongs  to  a  much 
more  recent  date.  The  author  lived  in  Gaul  at  the  beginning  of 
the  fifth  century,  and  the  manuscript  tradition  is  sufficient  proof 
that  he  was  called  Cyprian  and  that  the  name  is  not  fictitious  but 
historical.  The  original  work  seems  to  have  included  all  historical 
books  of  the  Old  Testament;  so  far  only  the  paraphrases  of  the 
Pentateuch,  Josue  and  Judges,  are  known  to  us,  with  a  few  insignificant 
fragment  of  the  other  books;  the  text  of  the  portions  preserved  is 
not  free  from  gaps  and  breaks.  As  a  rule  Cyprian  follows  faithfully 
his  scriptural  model ;  only  occasionally  does  he  abbreviate  or  enlarge. 
His   narrative   is   somewhat   cold   and    dry;  we   often  miss   even  the 

1  Ib.,  xix.   53—346. 

27  * 


420  SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

original  vivacity  of  the  biblical  text.    He  also  violates  very  often  the 
rules  of  Latin  metre. 

It  was  only  in  1560  that  some  verses  (165  hexameters  on  the  begin- 
ning of  Genesis)  of  this  extensive  work  were  made  known  (also  in  Oehler's 
Tertullian  II.  774 — 776,  and  in  Harte l's  Cyprian  III.  283 — 288).  In  1733 
E.  Martine  published  the  entire  text  of  the  paraphrase  on  Genesis  (with 
the  exception  of  verses  325 — 378).  It  was  reprinted  in  Arevalo's  edition 
of  the  Historia  evangelica  [Migne,  PL.,  xix.  345 — 380;  see  no.  1).  The 
rest  of  Cyprian's  remains  were  published  by  J.  B.  Pitra,  Spicilegium 
Solesmense,  Paris,  1852,  i.  171 — 258;  Analecta  sacra  et  classica,  Paris, 
part  1,  pp.   181  —  207. 

An  excellent  complete  edition  is  due  to  R.  Peiper,  Cypriani  Galli  poetae 
Heptateuchos,  Vienna,  1891  (Corpus  script,  eccles.  lat.  xxiii);  cf.  H.  Ph. 
Best,  De  Cypriani  quae  feruntur  metris  in  Heptateuchum  (Diss,  inaug.), 
Marburg,  1891.  Best  distributes  the  authorship  of  the  work  between  two 
writers:  Cyprian  who  wrote  the  Genesis-paraphrase  in  Italy  about  410, 
and  an  anonymous  writer  who  composed  the  paraphrase  of  Exodus-Judges 
in  Gaul  early  in  the  fifth  century.  A.  Stutzenberger ,  Der  Heptateuch  des 
gallischen  Dichters  Cyprianus,  Zweibrücken,  1903  (against  the  theory  of 
Best).  —  Cf.  St.  Gamber,  Le  livre  de  la  Genese  dans  la  poesie  latine  du 
Ve  siecle,  Paris,  1899.  For  other  works  attributed  to  our  Cyprian 
cf.  §  51,  6. 

3.  ANONYMOUS.  —  The  two  poems  De  Sodoma  and  De  Jona, 
very  probably  the  work  of  a  contemporary  and  fellow-citizen  of 
Cyprian,  show  that  their  author  possessed  the  poetical  faculty  in  a 
greater  degree.  The  first  relates  in  167  hexameters  the  downfall  of 
Sodom;  the  second,  only  partially  (the  beginning  is  in  105  hexa- 
meters) preserved,  describes  the  salvation  of  Ninive.  Its  proper  title, 
therefore,  should  have  been  De  Ninive;  doubtless  the  actual  title 
indicates  only  the  biblical  source  of  the  poet's  inspiration.  In  this  work 
the  scriptural  narrative  is  reproduced  in  an  original  and  attractive 
manner;  the  diction  is  polished,  and  the  verse  correct  and  graceful. 

In  the  manuscripts  and  in  the  printed  editions  these  two  poems  are 
usually  found  among  the  (spurious)  works  of  Tertullian  [Oehler,  ii.  769  to 
773)  and  Cyprian  [Hartel,  iii.  289 — 301).  The  best  and  latest  edition  of 
them  is  that  of  Peiper,  Cypriani  Galli  poetae  Heptateuchos,  pp.  212  —  226. 
On  De  Sodoma  cf.   Gamber,  1.  c. 

4.  PROBA.  —  Vergil  furnished  the  poetical  model  for  the  works 
hitherto  described ;  his  own  words  were  now  used  by  the  lady  Proba 
to  construct  a  Cento  Virgilianus  or  «variegated  pattern»  of  694  hexa- 
meters i,  taken  entirely  or  in  part  from  the  Aeneid  and  other  works 
of  the  poet,  and  so  arranged  as  to  reproduce  (partially)  the  scriptural 
narrative.  From  the  Old  Testament  she  selects  for  long  description 
only  the  Creation,  the  Fall  of  Adam  and  Eve,  and  the  Deluge. 
Thereon  directly  follows  the  Gospel-history  from  the  Birth  of  Christ 
to  the  Ascension.     It   is  unnecessary  to  insist  farther  on  the  oddity 

1  Migne,  PL.,  xix.  803—818. 


§    88.      POETS   AND   HISTORIANS.  421 

of  biblical  ideas  in  the  mouth  of  Vergil.  This  Proba  was  formerly 
supposed  to  be  Anicia  Faltonia  Proba,  but  now  we  know  that  she 
was  the  grand-daughter  of  this  lady  and  the  wife  of  Clodius  Celsinus 
Adelphius,  city-prefect  (praefectus  urbi)  of  Rome  in  351.  Before  her 
conversion  to  Christianity  she  had  written  a  (lost)  epic  poem  on  the 
war  between  Constantius  and  the  usurper  Magnentius. 

Probae  Cento.  Rec.  K.  Schenkt:  Poetae  christiani  minores,  part  1, 
Vienna,  1888  (Corpus  script,  eccles.  lat.  xxi),  511  ff.  J,  Aschbach,  Die 
Anicier  und  die  römische  Dichterin  Proba,  Vienna,  1870  (Sitzungsberichte 
der  phil.-hist.  Klasse  der  kgl.  Akad.  der  Wissensch.  Ixiv).  In  the  edition 
of  Schenkt  will  be  found  three  other  Centones  Virgiliani  composed  by 
Christians:  Versus  ad  gratiam  Domini  (pp.  609 — 615),  an  instruction  on 
the  Christian  religion  in  the  shape  of  a  dialogue  between  the  shepherd 
Tityrus  and  Meliboeus,  the  work  of  a  certain  Pomponius ;  De  Verbi  incar- 
natione  (pp.  615 — 620),  wrongly  attributed  in  the  past  to  Sedulius  (§  91,  5); 
De  ecclesia  (pp.  621 — 627).  All  three  are  later  than  the  work  of  Proba. 
For  other  details  concerning  this  kind  of  literary  work  cf.  Teuffel-Schwabe, 
Gesch.  der  röm.  Lit.,  5.  ed.,  pp.  41  1216— -1217  1228;  Manitius,  Gesch. 
der  christl.-latein.  Poesie,  pp.  127 — 130. 

5.  AUSONIUS.  —  The  accomplished  and  erudite  rhetorician  Decimus 
Magnus  Ausonius,  of  Burdigala  (Bordeaux),  born  about  310  and  de- 
ceased about  395,  has  his  place  rather  in  the  general  history  of 
Roman  literature.  Nominally  he  was  a  Christian.  In  his  writings 
however  (Ephemeris,  Domestica,  Parentalia,  Commemoratio  profes- 
sorum  Burdigalensium,  Epitaphia  heroum  qui  bello  Troico  inter- 
fuerunt,  Eclogarum  liber  etc.),  generally  it  is  heathen  thought  and 
style  that  predominate.  In  some  of  his  poems,  however,  versified 
Christian  prayers  are  found:  Ephemeris  iii.  oratio  (ed.  Peiper,  pp.  7 
to  11);  Dornest,  ii.  versus  paschales  (pp.  17 — 19);  ib.  iii.  oratio 
versibus  rhopalicis,  i.  e.  verses  in  which  each  word  is  a  syllable 
longer  than  the  preceding  word  (pp.   19 — 21). 

Most  of  the  writings  of  Ausonius  are  found  v&Migne,  PL.,  xix.  817  ff. 
The  most  recent  complete  editions  are  those  of  K.  Schenkt,  Berlin,  1883 
(Mon.  Germ.  hist.  Auct.  antiquiss.,  v.  2),  and  R.  Peiper,  Leipzig,  1886. 
Cf.  Teuffel-Schwabe ,  1.  c,  pp.  1062 — 1070,  and  on  his  Christian  poetry 
Manitius,  1.  c,  pp.   105 — 111. 

6.  DAMASUS.  —  St.  Damasus  (366 — 384)  was  one  of  the  most 
celebrated  of  the  fourth-century  popes  and  cultivated  the  epigram 
with  especial  success.  We  owe  to  him  many  metrical  epitaphs  (tituli), 
also  metrical  inscriptions  for  churches  and  chapels,  all  of  which  were 
executed  in  a  calligraphy  of  special  artistic  perfection  by  his  friend 
and  admirer  Furius  Dionysius  Philocalus  (Damasene  letters).  Some 
specimens  of  the  work  of  Philocalus  are  still  preserved  on  the  original 
marble,  but  the  greater  part  of  these  poems  is  known  to  us  in  tran- 
scriptions only.  They  abound  in  errors  of  prosody,  but  also  in  dog- 
matic allusions  of  very  great  value.    Damasus  wrote  other  short  non- 


422  SECOND   PERIOD,      THIRD   SECTION. 

inscriptional  poems  on  martyrs  and  holy  persons ;  the  largest  of  them 
(carmen  7)1  relates  the  conversion  and  martyrdom  of  St.  Paul  in  26 
hexameters.  Two  hymns:  one  (carmen  8)  to  the  apostle  St.  Andrew, 
and  the  other  (carmen  30)  to  St.  Agatha,  are  now  known  to  be  spurious. 
St.  Jerome  remarks2  that  Damasus  wrote  on  virginity  both  in  verse 
and  in  prose  (versu  prosaque).  An  ancient  catalogue  of  manuscripts 
mentions:  Damasi  papae  liber  de  vitiis3.  Apart  from  his  epigrams 
and  poems  only  some  letters  of  Damasus  have  reached  us4. 

The  folio  edition  of  A.  M.  Merenda  (Rome,  1754)  is  reprinted  in 
Migne,  PL.,  xiii.  109  ff.;  ib.,  lxxiv.  527 — 530,  a  Carmen  Damaso  papae  ad- 
scriptum  is  found.  An  excellent  edition  of  the  epigrams  and  poems,  con- 
siderably increased  especially  by  the  discoveries  of  G.  B.  de  Rossi  (f  1894) 
is  due  to  Ihm:  Damasi  Epigrammata.  Accedunt  Pseudodamasiana  alia- 
que  ad  Damasiana  inlustranda  idonea.  Rec.  et  adnot.  M.  Ihm,  Leipzig, 
1895  (Anthologiae  latinae  supplementum  i).  Cf.  Id.,  in  Rhein.  Museum 
f.  Philol.,  new  series  (1895),  1.  191 — 204;  C.  Weyman,  in  Revue  d'hist.  et 
de  litter,  relig.  (1896),  i.  58 — 73,  also  M.  Amend,  Studien  zu  den  Gedichten 
des  Papstes  Damasus  (Progr.),  Würzburg,  1894.  J.  Wilpert  discovered 
another  epigram  of  Damasus  in  four  hexameters,  dedicated  to  his  mother ; 
cf.  Lorenza,  Nuovo  Bullett.  di  Archeol.  crist.  (1903),  ix.  50 — 58.  —  B.  Hoel- 
scher ,  De  SS.  Damasi  papae  et  Hilarii  episc.  Pictaviensis  qui  feruntur 
hymnis  sacris  (Progr.),  Münster,  1858.  J.  Kayser,  Beiträge  zur  Geschichte 
und  Erklärung  der  ältesten  Kirchenhymnen,  2.  ed.,  Paderborn,  1881, 
pp.  89 — 126.  —  For  the  letters  of  Damasus  (genuine  and  spurious)  cf.  Jaffe, 
Regesta  Pontificum  Romanorum,  2.  ed.,  Leipzig,  1885,  i.  37 — 40,  n.  232 
to  254.  —  There  is  a  German  version  of  the  letters  in  Wenzlowsky ,  Die 
Briefe  der  Päpste  (Bibl.  der  Kirchenväter),  ii.  265—406.  G.  Ficker,  Be- 
merkungen zu  einer  Inschrift  des  Papstes  Damasus,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  Kirchen- 
geschichte (1901  — 1902),  xxii.  333 — 342;  G.  Mercati ,  II  carme  damasino 
«De  Davide»  e  la  falsa  corrispondenza  di  Damaso  e  Girolamo  riguardo 
al  Salterio,  in  Note  di  letteratura  biblica  e  cristiana  antica  (Studi  e  Testi  v), 
Rome,  1901,  pp.  113 — 126;  J.  Wittig,  Papst  Damasus  I.  Quellenkritische 
Studien  zu  seiner  Geschichte  und  Charakteristik,  Rome,  1902,  in  Römische 
Quartalschr.,  fasc.  supplem.  14).  In  the  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1900 
to  1 901),  i.  556  ff.,  C.  H.  Turner  brought  out  a  new  edition  of  the  de- 
crees of  the  Roman  Synod  of  382,  republished  with  additional  decrees  by 
Gelasius  I.  (§  114,  1).    E.  Ch.Babut,  La  plus  ancienne  de'cretale,  Paris,  1904. 

7.  TWO  POLEMICAL  POEMS.  —  The  famous  Paris  manuscript  of 
Prudentius  (Cod.  Puteaneus  saec.  vi.)  has  handed  down  a  Carmen 
adv.  paganos  which  satirizes  with  caustic  wit  the  old  heathen  belief. 
Its  122  hexameters  were  probably  composed  about  394,  apropos  of 
the  hopeless  overthrow  of  polytheism  which  for  a  while  had  begun 
to  lift  its  head  again  under  the  usurper  Eugenius  (392 — 394)  and 
the  city  prefect  of  Rome,  Nicomachus  Flavianus.  This  historical  back- 
ground lends  interest  to  an  otherwise  insignificant  work.  To  the  same 
time  and  circle  belongs  the  poem:  Ad  quendam  senatorem  ex  Chri- 
stiana religione  ad  idolorum    servitutem    conversum  (85   hexameters), 

1  Migne,  PL,  xiii.  379 — 381.  2  Ep.  22,  22. 

3  L.  Delisk,  Les  manuscrits  du  Comte  d'Ashburnham,  Paris,    1883,  p.  87. 

4  Migne,  PL.,  xiii.  347—376. 


§    88.      POETS    AND    HISTORIANS.  423 

in  which  a  Christian  senator,    now  become  [a    worshipper   of  Cybele 
and  Isis,  is  made  the  butt  of  some  not  insipid  satire. 

The  Carmen  adversus  paganos  was  first  edited  entire  by  L.  Delisle, 
in  the  Bibliotheque  de  l'Ecole  des  Chartes,  series  6  (1867),  iii.  297 — 303. 
Th.  Mommsen  edited  it  anew  in  Hermes  (1870),  iv.  350 — 363.  G.  Dobbel- 
stein,  De  carmine  christiano  codicis  Parisini  8084  contra  fautores  paganae 
superstitionis  Ultimos  (Diss,  inaug.),  Louvain ,  1879.  Other  editions  are 
noted  in  Teuffei- Schwabe ,  1.  c. ,  p.  1121,  and  Manitius ,  1.  c. ,  p.  146. 
Seefelder,  Abhandlung  über  das  Carmen  adv.  Flavianum  (Progr.),  Gmünd, 
1901.  —  The  second  poem  was  last  edited  by  Peiper ,  Cypriani  Galli 
poetae  Heptateuchos,  pp.  227  —  230,  and  is  found  also  in  Harte? s  Cyprian, 
iii.  302—305. 

8.  THE  CHRONOGRAPHER  OF  THE  YEAR  354.  —  Under  this  name 
historians  are  wont  to  speak  of  the  unknown  author  or  compiler  of 
a  guide  or  manual  for  the  City  of  Rome,  written  in  354  and  contain- 
ing a  copious  variety  of  historical  material.  Most  of  its  quite  miscel- 
laneous contents  may  rightly  claim  an  official  character,  and  are,  there- 
fore, historical  authorities  of  the  first  order.  It  contains :  a)  an  official 
Roman  municipal  calendar  of  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century,  tran- 
scribed in  354  by  Philocalus  (see  no.  6),  and  adorned  with  numerous 
figures  and  epigrams ;  b)  the  consular  lists  from  the  beginning  of  the 
consulate  to  the  year  354;  c)  an  Easter  table  for  the  years  312 — 411 
(410);  d)  a  catalogue  of  the  City  Prefects  from  254  to  354;  e)  a  cata- 
logue of  the  annual  commemorations  of  popes  (depositiones  episco- 
porum  romanorum)  from  Dionysius  (f  268)  to  Julius  I.  (352);  f )  a 
calendar  of  the  feasts  of  the  Roman  Church  with  special  mentions 
of  the  anniversaries  of  martyrs  (depositiones  martyrum) ;  g)  a  catalogue 
of  the  popes  from  Peter  to  Liberius  (elected  pope  in  352),  it  forms 
the  basis  of  the  oldest  part  of  the  so-called  Liber  pontificalis  (§  118,  7); 
h)  a  description  of  the  quarters  or  wards  of  the  City  of  Rome  (re- 
giones  urbis  Romae),  composed  about  334;  i)  a  general  Chronicle 
reaching  to  334,  being  a  recension  and  a  continuation  of  the  Chronicle 
of  Hippolytus  (§  54,  6);  k)  a  chronicle  of  the  City  of  Rome  as  far 
as  324.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  manuscripts  through  which  this 
work  has  reached  us  have  received  various  additions  at  later  periods. 

Some  parts  of  this  large  compilation  were  published  as  early  as  the 
sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries.  The  work  was  edited  entire,  with 
exception  of  the  city-calendar  a)  and  the  description  of  the  regiones  h) 
by  Th.  Mommsen,  in  Abhandlungen  der  philolog.-histor.  Klasse  der  kgl. 
sächs.  Gesellsch.  der  Wissensch.,  Leipzig,  1850,  i.  547 — 693.  The  same 
savant  re-edited  the  work,  with  exception  of  the  city-description  h),  in 
Monumenta  Germ.  hist.  Auct.  antiqu.,  Berlin,  1892,  ix  1,  13 — 196.  For  the 
editions  of  the  calendar  and  the  description  of  the  city- wards  cf.  Teujf el- 
Schwab  e,  1.  c,  pp.   119   1 04 1  f. 

9.  HEGESIPPUS.  —  This  name  was  long  borne  by  the  Latin  trans- 
lator or  editor  of  the  (Greek)  «History  of  the  Jewish  War»  of  Josephus 
Flavius.    The  Latin  name  was  the  result  of  a  misunderstanding:  out 


424  SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

of  lo)(Tfj7toQ  was  made  Iosippus,  which  gave  way  to  Egesippus  and 
finally  to  Hegesippus,  so  that  Hegesippus  was  only  the  disfigured 
name  of  the  author.  Critical  considerations,  both  internal  and  external, 
compel  us  to  assign  the  translation  to  the  latter  half  of  the  fourth 
century.  Whether  it  be  a  youthful  work  of  St.  Ambrose  or  the 
production  of  another  is  still  perhaps  an  open  question,  although 
at  present  most  critics,  in  view  of  the  testimony  of  the  manuscripts 
and  the  resemblance  its  style  bears  to  that  of  his  known  works, 
agree  in  attributing  it  to  the  great  bishop  of  Milan.  The  translator, 
whoever  he  may  be,  abbreviated  in  some  places  the  original  work; 
thus,  the  last  three  books  (v — vii)  have  been  condensed  into  one 
book  (v).  Elsewhere  he  enlarged  his  text,  either  by  means  of  supple- 
ments drawn  from  other  quarters  or  by  rhetorical  additions;  more- 
over, he  imparted  a  Christian  character  to  the  entire  work. 

The  original  Benedictine  edition  of  St.  Ambrose  (Paris,  1686 — 1690) 
did  not  contain  the  so-called  Hegesippus;  cf.  t.  ii,  praef.  iv — v.  Gallandi 
printed  it  in  Bibl.  vet.  Patr.  vii.  653 — 771,  whence  it  passed  into  the  Venice 
reprint  of  the  Benedictine  Ambrose  (1781 — 1782)  ii,  Appendix  (with  special 
pagination),  and  into  Migne,  PL.,  xv.  1961 — 2224.  A  separate  edition  was 
brought  out  by  C.  Fr.  Weber  and  J.  Caesar,  Marburg,  1864.  On  this  edition 
is  based  the  Hegesippus-text  found  in  the  Ballerini  edition  of  St.  Ambrose, 
Milan,  1875 — 1883,  vi.  1 — 276.  Fr.  Vogel,  De  Hegesippo  qui  dicitur,  Iosephi 
interprete  (Diss,  inaug.),  Erlangen,  1880.  Vogel,  Ambrosius  und  der  Über- 
setzer des  Josephus,  in  Zeitschr.  für  die  Österreich.  Gymnasien  (1883),  xxxiv. 
241 — 249  (Vogel  does  not  admit  that  Ambrose  is  the  translator).  H.  Rönsch, 
Die  lexikalischen  Eigentümlichkeiten  der  Latinität  des  sogen.  Hegesippus, 
in  Romanische  Forschungen  (1883),  i.  256 — 321,  reprinted  in  Rönsch, 
Collectanea  philologa,  herausgegeben  von  C.  Wagener,  Bremen,  1891, 
pp.  32 — 89  (Ambrose  is  the  translator).  E.  Klebs ,  Das  lateinische  Ge- 
schichtswerk über  den  jüdischen  Krieg,  in  Festschrift  zum  50jährigen 
Doktorjubiläum  L.  Friedländer  dargebracht,  Leipzig,  1895,  PP-  210—241 
(Ambrose  is  not  the  translator).  After  a  profound  comparative  study  of 
the  grammatical  and  stylistic  peculiarities  of  the  pseudo-Hegesippus  and 
the  works  of  Ambrose,  the  latter  is  declared  by  G.  Langraf,  Die  Hegesippus- 
Frage,  in  Archiv,  f.  latein.  Lexikogr.  (1902),  xii.  465 — 472,  to  be  the  trans- 
lator of  the  work  in  question. 

10.  PILGRIM-NARRATIVES.  —  There  is  extant  a  work  under  the 
title  of:  Itinerarium  a  Burdigala  Hierusalem  usque,  that  is  not  precisely 
the  description  of  a  journey,  but  a  very  concise  narrative  of  a  pil- 
grimage from  Bordeaux  to  Jerusalem,  and  thence  to  Milan  by  way 
of  Rome.  The  earliest  account  of  a  pilgrimage  to  the  Holy  Land 
is  the:  Peregrinatio  ad  loca  sancta,  written  by  a  woman,  and  first 
discovered  by  Gamurrini.  The  text,  unfortunately  quite  imperfect, 
seems  to  indicate  that  the  author  was  a  nun  in  southern  Gaul. 
Gamurrini  came  to  the  conclusion  that  she  was  St.  Sylvia  of  Aquitaine, 
a  sister  of  Rufinus,  prime  minister  of  the  Eastern  Empire  under 
Theodosius  the  Great  and  Arcadius.  The  travels  of  the  pious  and 
erudite  pilgrim  took  place  probably  in  the  years  380—390  (385—388?). 


§89.     SCHISMS  AND  HERESIES  ;  THEIR  DEFENDERS  AND  OPPONENTS.      425 

It  was  at  Constantinople  that  she  prepared  for  her  cloistered  sisters 
in  Gaul  this  simple  and  plain  narrative  of  all  she  had  seen  and  ex- 
perienced. The  work  possesses  a  manifold  interest;  to  the  theo- 
logian it  is  especially  important  for  the  description  of  the  liturgical 
services  at  Jerusalem,    particularly  during  Holy  Week  and  at  Easter. 

The  Itinerarium  Burdigalense  opens  the  series  of  Itinera  Hierosolymitana 
et  descriptiones  Terrae  Sanctae,  edited  by  T.  Tobler  and  A.  Molinier, 
Geneva,  1879,  *•  I  — 25i  lt  *s  ^s0  &rst  among  the  Itinera  Hierosolymitana 
saeculi  iv — viii  edited  by  P.  Geyer,  Vienna,  1898  (Corpus  script,  eccles. 
lat.  xxxix),  pp.  1 — S3-  —  S.  Hilarii  Tractatus  de  mysteriis  et  Hymni  et  S.  Silviae 
Aquitanae  Peregrinatio  ad  loca  sancta.  Quae  inedita  ex  codice  Arretino 
deprompsit  J.  F.  Gamurrini,  Rome,  1887.  Gamurrini  brought  out  in  1888 
a  second  and  improved  edition  of  the  Peregrinatio.  The  most  recent  and 
best  edition  is  that  of  Geyer  (1.  c,  pp.  35 — 101).  —  C.  Weyman,  Über  die 
Pilgerfahrt  der  Sylvia  in  das  heilige  Land,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1888), 
lxx.  34 — 50.  L.  de  Saint- Aignan,  Le  pelerinage  de  Sainte  Sylvie  aux  lieux 
saints  en  385,  Orleans,,  1889.  F.  Cabrol,  Les  eglises  de  Jerusalem,  la 
discipline  et  la  liturgie  au  IVe  siecle.  Etude  sur  la  Peregrinatio  Silviae, 
Paris-Poitiers,  1895.  E.  A.  Fechtet,  Sanctae  Silviae  peregrinatio,  the  text 
and  a  study  of  the  Latinity,  London,  1902.  M.  Firotin,  Le  veritable  auteur 
de  la  Peregrinatio  Sylviae,  in  Revue  des  questions  historiques  (1903), 
lxxiv.  381 — 397  ;  the  pilgrim  in  question  is  Etheria,  a  Spanish  nun  mention- 
ed by  the  monk  Valerius,  in  Migne,  PL.,  lxxxvii.  421. 

§  89.  Schisms  and  heresies;  their  defenders  and  opponents. 
I.  NOVATIANISM.  —  The  followers  of  Novatian  (§  55)  survived 
for  some  centuries,  East  and  West,  as  a  rigorist  and  schismatic  faction. 
In  Spain  they  were  refuted  by  St.  Pacian,  bishop  of  Barcelona  (about 
360 — 390).  St.  Jerome  says  of  him1  that  he  was:  castigatae  eloquentiae 
et  tarn  vita  quam  sermone  clarus.  Of  his  three  letters  to  the  Novatian 
Sympronianus  the  first  two2  treated  particularly  of  the  term  «Catholic», 
as  the  special  characteristic  of  the  Church3.  The  third  and  somewhat 
longer  letter  is  devoted  to  the  Catholic  teaching  concerning  penance. 
Pacian  also  wrote  a  short  Paraenesis  ad  poenitentiam  *  and  a  Sermo 
de  baptismoh.  A  little  work  entitled  «The  Fawn»  (Cervulus)  in  oppo- 
sition to  certain  heathen  excesses  practised  in  Spain  at  the  New  Year 
has  perished  (see  Paraenesis,  c.  1). 

The  first  to  edit  the  writings  of  Pacian  was  Tilius,  Paris,  1538.  This 
edition  is  correctly  reprinted  in  Gallandi  (Bibl.  vet.  Patr.  vii,  255 — 276), 
and  in  Migne,  1.  c.  A  new  but  unsatisfactory  edition  was  published  by 
Ph.  H.  Peyrot,  Zwolle,  1896-  cf.  C.  Weyman,  in  Berliner  philol.  Wochen- 
schrift 1896,  pp.  1057 — 1062  1 104 — 1 108.  P.  B.  Gams,  Die  Kirchengesch. 
von  Spanien  ii.  1,  Ratisbon,  1864,  318 — 324.  A.  Grub  er ,  Studien  zu 
Pacianus  von  Barcelona,  Munich  1901.  R.  Kauer,  Studien  zu  Pacianus, 
Vienna,  1902.  —  It  was  to  Dexter,  a  son  of  Pacian,  that  St.  Jerome  de- 
dicated his  De  viris  illustrious  (cf.  §  2,  1).  Jerome  says  of  Dexter  (De 
viris  ill.,  c.  132):  Fertur  ad  me  omnimodam  historiam  texuisse,  quam  necdum 

1  De  viris  ill.,  c.    106.  2  Migne,  PL.,  xiii.    1051  — 1082. 

3  Ep.  i.  4 :   Christianus  mihi  nomen  est,  Catholicus  vero  cognomen. 

4  Migne,  PL.,  xiii.    108 1  — 1090.  5  Ib.,  xiii.   1089— 1094. 


426  SECOND   PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

legi.  The  historical  work  here  mentioned  was  never  published.  The 
Chronicon  Dextri  (Migne,  PL.,  xxxi.  55—572)  covering  the  period  from 
the  birth  of  Christ  to  430,  that  the  Spanish  Jesuit  Hieronimo  Roman  de 
la  Higuera  (f  161 1)  pretended  to  have  discovered,  is  a  forgery.  Cf.  Gams, 
1.  c,  pp.  334—336,  and  Bahr,  Die  christl.  Dichter  und  Geschichtschreiber 
Roms,  2.  ed.,  Karlsruhe,  1872,  pp.  223—225.  —  St.  Jerome  mentions  (I.e., 
c.  in)  the  autobiography  (tarn  prosa  quam  versibus)  of  the  Spaniard  A quilius 
Severus,  who  died  during  the  reign  of  Valentinian  I.  (364—375)-  I*  w** 
entitled  xarajxpocp^  or  -sTpa  and  has  perished. 

2.  DONATISM.  —  In  the  Donatist  controversy  the  African  Church 
encountered  a  problem  in  every  sense  vital  and  one  in  which  the 
Novatians  made  common  cause  with  the  African  heretics,  it  being 
laid  down  as  a  thesis  that  no  unholy  person  could  be  a  member  of 
the  Church  of  Christ.  The  Donatists  in  particular  maintained  that 
the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments  depended  on  the  subjective  dispositions 
of  the  minister.  They  held  this  doctrine  not  only  as  regards  ortho- 
doxy in  which  they  were  one  with  the  opponents  of  heretical  baptism 
(§51,1),  but  also  as  regards  personal  morality.  They  abandoned  there- 
by the  concept  of  the  Church  as  an  external  and  visible  society  and 
ascribed  the  fact  of  justification  by  sacraments  to  the  condition  of 
the  minister.  The  author  of  this  false  teaching  was  Donatus,  bishop 
of  Casae  Nigrae  in  Numidia  about  the  year  313.  No  works  are 
current  under  his  name.  The  first  literary  champion  of  the  sect 
was  Donatus  the  Great,  schismatic  bishop  of  Carthage  (f  ca.  355). 
According  to  St.  Jerome1  he  wrote  many  works  (multa  ad  suam 
haeresim  pertinentia  opuscula  et  de  Spiritu  Sancto  liber  Ariano 
dogmati  congruens).  They  have  all  perished,  together  with  those 
of  his  successor  Parmenianus;  the  latter,  however,  inspired  the  anti- 
Donatist  writings  of  St.  Optatus  and  St.  Augustine.  —  Optatus, 
bishop  of  Mileve  in  Numidia,  about  370,  wrote  a  large  work  in  six 
books  usually  known  as  Contra  Parmenianum  Donatistam^.  About 
385  he  returned  to  the  task,  corrected  and  completed  his  work 
(hence  the  mention:  of  pope  Siricius  ii.  3),  and  added  a  seventh 
book3.  The  first  book  outlines  the  history  of  the  Donatist  schism 
(Schisma  .  . .  confusae  mulieris  iracundia  peperit,  ambitus  nutrivit,  avaritia 
roboravit:  i.  19).  The  second  demonstrates  that  there  is  but  one 
Church,  and  indicates  where  it  may  be  found  and  recognized  (Negare 
non  potes  scire  te  in  urbe  Roma  Petro  primo  Cathedram  episcopalem 
esse  collatam,  in  qua  sederit  omnium  apostolorum  caput  Petrus,  unde 
et  Cephas  est  appellatus,  in  qua  una  cathedra  unitas  ab  omnibus 
servaretur:  ii.  2).  In  the  third  book  he  explains  in  detail  why  the 
Catholics  are  not  to  be  blamed  for  the  severe  measures  of  the 
imperial  government  against  the  Donatists.  The  fourth  book  is  a 
refutation  of  the  false  exegesis  of  Parmenian  who  twisted  against 
the   holy   mass   and   the   sacraments   of  the  Catholics   the   words   of 

1  De  viris  ill.,  c.  93.  2  Migne,  PL.,  xi.  883 — 1082.  3  Ib.,  xi.    1081  — 1104. 


§  89.     SCHISMS  AND  HERESIES;  THEIR  DEFENDERS  AND  OPPONENTS.      427 

Isaias  lxvi.  3 :  Sacrificium  peccatoris  quasi  qui  victimet  canem  (iv.  6), 
and  Psalm  cxl.  5 :  Oleum  peccatoris  non  ungat  caput  meum  (iv.  7). 
The  fifth  book  is  devoted  to  baptism  and  develops  the  so-called 
opus  operatum  theory  (Sacramenta  per  se  esse  sancta,  non  per 
homines.  .  .  .  Deus  lavat,  non  homo:  v.  4).  In  the  sixth  book  he 
depicts  the  odious  and  sacrilegious  conduct  of  the  Donatists  who 
broke  all  altars  and  chalices  used  by  Catholics :  Quid  est  enim  altare 
nisi  sedes  et  corporis  et  sanguinis  Christi?  (vi.  1);  fregisti  etiam  calices, 
Christi  sanguinis  portatores  (vi.  2).  Finally,  in  the  seventh  book,  he 
made  some  additions  and  corrections.  The  entire  work  is  animated  by 
an  intense  desire  for  re-union  with  his  separated  brethren.  The  language 
of  Optatus  is  bold  and  impressive,  but  also  somewhat  coarse  and  rude. 

We  owe  the  first  (folio)  edition  of  Optatus  to  J.  Cochlaeus,  Mainz,  1549. 
Specially  famous  is  the  excellent  folio  edition  of  L.  E.  Dupin,  Paris,  1700, 
reprinted  in  Gallandi,  Bibl.  vet.  Patr.  v.  459  ff.,  in  Migne,  1.  c,  and  Hurter, 
Ss.  Patr.  opusc.  sei.,  Innsbruck,  1870,  x.  The  latest  and  best  edition  is 
that  of  C.  Ziwsa,  Vienna,  1893  (Corpus  script,  eccles.  lat.  xxvi).  Cf.  Id., 
Beiträge  zu  Optatus  Milevitanus,  in  Eranos  Vindobonensis,  Vienna,  1893, 
pp.  168 — 176  (treats  of  the  palaeographical  tradition,  text-criticism  and  style 
of  Optatus).  —  Optatus  often  mentions  (i.  14  20  26  27)  a  collection  of 
acta  that  he  had  appended  to  his  work  in  justification  of  his  expose  of 
the  history  of  the  Donatist  schism.  This  collection  of  documents  has  reached 
us  in  only  one  manuscript  (Cod.  Parisinus  saec.  xi)  and  even  that  is  im- 
perfect (ed.  Ziwsa,  pp.  183 — 216).  Lately  much  critical  labor  has  been 
extended  on  this  collection,  with  varying  results :  D.  Völter,  Der  Ursprung 
des  Donatismus,  Freiburg  im  Br.  and  Tübingen,  1883;  O.  Seeck,  Quellen 
und  Urkunden  über  die  Anfänge  des  Donatismus,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  Kirchen- 
gesch.  (1888 — 1889),  x.  505  —  568;  L.  Duchesne,  Le  dossier  du  donatisme, 
in  Melanges  d'archeologie  et  d'histoire  (1890),  x.  589 — 650.  In  this  study 
Duchesne  defended  triumphantly  against  Völter  and  Seeck  the  genuineness 
of  the  documents  used  by  Optatus  and  the  credibility  of  the  statements 
made  by  him.  —  Cf.  W.  Thümmel,  Zur  Beurteilung  des  Donatismus,  Halle, 
1893.  The  pseudo-Cyprianic  treatise  De  singnlaritate  clericorum  (ed.  Hartel, 
app.,  pp.  173 — 210)  is  now  attributed,  after  G.Morin,  to  Macrobius,  Donatist 
bishop  in  Rome,  (ca.  363 — 375).  This  is  the  opinion  of  Harnack,  Der 
pseudocyprianische  Traktat  De  singularitate  clericorum,  in  Texte  und  Unter- 
suchungen, new  series,  (1903),  ix.  3.  The  latter  sees  also  in  Macrobius 
the  author  of  the  Passio  Maximiani  et  Isaiae  donatistarum  [Migne,  PL., 
viii.  767  —  774).  F.  Martroye,  Une  tentative  de  revolution  sociale  en  Afrique. 
Donatistes  et  Circoncellions,  in  Revue  des  questions  historiques,  1904,  i. 
354 — 416.     For  the  Donatist  Tychonius  cf.  §  93,   13. 

3.  PRISCILLIANISM.  —  There  exists  as  yet  no  sufficiently  clear 
account  of  the  origin  and  nature  of  the  Priscillianist  heresy  that 
afflicted  so  severely  the  Church  of  Spain.  The  writings  of  the 
heresiarch  Priscillian,  first  edited  by  Schepss  (1889)  contradict  in 
various  ways  the  received  accounts  of  the  heresy,  particularly  those 
of  Sulpicius  Severus  K  At  the  same  time,  by  reason  of  their  imper- 
fect manuscript-tradition  and  the  obscurity  of  their  diction,  these 
newly  found  writings  contain  what  are  at  present  insurmountable  dif- 

1  Chron.  ii.  46—51;  Dial.  ii.  (iii.)    II  ff. 


428  SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

ficulties.  It  is  certain,  however,  that  Priscillian  put  forth  Gnostic- 
dualistic  speculations  vividly  reminiscent  of  Manichseism,  and 
propped  up,  apparently,  a  system  or  framework  of  mythological 
and  astrological  ideas.  Their  adversaries  maintained  that  the  Priscil- 
lianists  joined  a  gross  immorality  with  a  public  show  of  asceticism. 
Priscillian  himself  belonged  to  a  noble  Spanish  family,  and  entered 
upon  life  highly  endowed  with  gifts  both  of  mind  and  fortune.  In 
380  a  synod  of  Csesaraugusta  (Saragossa)  excommunicated  both 
himself  and  his  disciples.  It  was  then,  according  to  Sulpicius  Severus  *, 
that  his  friends  made  him  bishop  of  Abila  in  Lusitania.  Violent 
conflicts  followed,  in  which  the  Catholics  had  for  leaders  Hydatius 
(Idacius)  of  Emerita  and  Ithacius  of  Ossonoba,  bishops  of  whom 
Sulpicius  Severus  speaks  in  no  flattering  terms.  In  the  end  Priscillian 
and  several  of  his  adherents  were  decapitated  at  Trier  in  385  by  order 
of  the  usurper  Maximus,  and  in  spite  of  the  strong  protest  of  St.  Martin 
of  Tours.  The  crime  for  which  they  were  juridically  tried  and  executed 
was  magic.  We  knew  from  St.  Jerome 2  that  Priscillian  had  written 
many  small  works  (opuscula).  Schepss  discovered  eleven  of  these 
writings  in  a  fifth-  or  sixth-  century  manuscript  belonging  to  the 
University  of  Würzburg.  The  author  is  not  formally  named  in  this 
codex;  nevertheless,  most  of  the  treatises  show  by  their  contents 
that  they  come  from  the  hand  of  the  leader  of  the  Priscillianists. 
The  first  three  are  devoted  to  his  own  defence.  The:  Liber  Apo- 
logeticus  (ed.  Schepss  pp.  3 — 33)  is  addressed  to  the  beatissimi  sacer- 
doles  whom  Schepss  identifies  as  the  380  bishops  of  the  synod  of 
Saragossa.  In  it  the  writer  defends  himself  from  the  charges  of 
sacrilegious  acts  and  heretical  teachings  (incidentally,  he  quotes 
[p.  6]  the  Comma  Johanneum).  The:  Liber  ad  Damasum  episcopum 
(pp.  34 — 43)  contains  an  appeal  to  that  pope  expressly  based  on 
historical  grounds.  The:  Liber  de  fide  et  de  apocryphis  (pp.  44 — 56) 
maintains  that  it  is  lawful  to  read  orthodox  apocryphal  writings.  Then 
follow  seven  discourses  in  which  Priscillian  nowhere  appears  as  an 
accused  person  but  speaks  as  a  teacher  to  a  circle  of  confiding  dis- 
ciples: Tractatus  paschae  (pp.  57 — 61),  Tractatus  Genesis  (pp.  62 — 68), 
Tractatus  Exodi  (pp.  69 — 81),  Tractatus  primi  Psalmi  (pp.  82 — 85), 
Tractatus  Psalmi  tertii  (pp.  86 — 89),  Tractatus  ad  populum  I  (pp.  90—91), 
Tractatus  ad  populum  II  (pp.  92  — 102).  These  writings  close  with 
a  prayer  entitled:  Benedictio  super  fideles  (pp.  103  — 106)  in  which 
the  author  praises  the  omnipotence  and  goodness  of  God.  Four  of 
the  eleven  treatises  are  mutilated,  3  and  9  at  the  beginning,  8  and  1 1 
at  the  end.  The  Schepss  edition  is  followed  by  an  appendix: 
Priscilliani  in  Pauli  apostoli  epistulas  Canones  a  Peregrino  episcopo 
emendati  (pp.  107 — 147),  and:  Orosii  ad  Augustinum  Commonitorium 
de    errore    Priscillianistarum    et  Origenistarum  (pp.    149 — 157).     The 

•    1  Chron.  ii.  47.  2  De  viris  ill.,  c.    121. 


§  89-     SCHISMS  AND  HERESIES;  THEIR  DEFENDERS  AND  OPPONENTS.      429 

first  of  these  works,  published  by  Mai  in  1843,  Dut  m  an  incomplete 
state,  is  an  outline  of  the  Pauline  theology  in  90  sentences  (canones), 
each  of  which,  however,  is  followed  by  the  relevant  texts  or  passages 
from  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  The  original  of  this  work  has  perish- 
ed; what  we  have  now  is  an  orthodox  recension  (sanae  doctrinae 
redditum  est:  Prooem.)  made  before  821  by  an  otherwise  unknown 
bishop  Peregrinus.  In  the  afore-mentioned  memorial  of  Orosius  to 
Augustine  (§  95,  2)  he  quoted  (ed.  Schepss,  p.  153)  a  passage  from 
a  letter  of  Priscillian. 

Priscilliani  quae  supersunt,  maximam  partem  nuper  detexit  adiectisque 
commentariis  criticis  et  indicibus  primus  edidit  G.  Schepss.  Accedit  Orosii 
Commonitorium  de  errore  Priscillianistarum  et  Origenistarum.  Vienna,  1889 
(Corpus  script,  eccles.  lat.  xviii).  —  Cf.  A.  Puech,  in  Journal  des  savants 
(Febr.,  May,  June,  1891);  H.  Ledere  (follows  Puech),  in  his  L'Espagne 
chretienne,  c.  iii,  Paris,  1906.  Fr.  Par  et ,  Priscillianus ,  ein  Reformator 
des  4.  Jahrhunderts,  Würzburg,  1891.  A.  Hilgenfeld,  Priscillianus  und  seine 
neuentdeckten  Schriften,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1892),  xxxv. 
1 — 85.  Schepss,  Pro  Priscilliano,  in  Wiener  Studien  (1893),  xv.  128 — 147 
(against  those  who  doubt  the  genuineness  of  the  treatises).  S.  Merkte,  Der 
Streit  über  Priscillian,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1896),  Ixxviii.  630 — 649. 
J.  Dierich,  Die  Quellen  zur  Geschichte  Priscillians  (Inaug.-Diss.),  Breslau,  1897. 
Künstle,  Das  Comma  Johanneum,  auf  seine  Herkunft  untersucht,  Freiburg, 
1905.  The  same  author  has  written  «Antipriscilliana»  (Freiburg,  1905), 
the  best  work  on  Priscillian's  errors  and  their  condemnation.  A.  Laver- 
tujon ,  Sulpice  Severe  edite  etc.,  (1899),  ii.  548  ff.  G.  Mercati ,  I  due 
trattati  al  popolo  di  Priscilliano,  in  Note  di  letteratura  biblica  e  cri- 
stiana  antica  (Studi  e  testi,  v.  5),  Rome,  1901,  pp.  127 — 136.  E.  Edling, 
Priscillianus  och  den  äldre  priscillianismen,  Upsala,  1902,  i.  —  Several 
other  works  written  during  the  original  controversies  have  perished.  Priscil- 
lian himself  speaks  at  the  beginning  of  his  Liber  Apologeticus  (p.  3) 
about  a  Libellus  fratrum  nostrorum  Tiberiani,  Asarbi  et  ceterorum,  cum 
quibus  nobis  una  fides  et  unus  est  sensus.  St.  Jerome  says  (De  viris  ill., 
c.  123),  that  this  Tiberianus  tried  to  justify  himself  in  a  turgid  and  pre- 
tentious apology  (apologeticum  tumenti  compositoque  sermone).  He  was 
afterwards  exiled  as  a  follower  of  Priscillian.  Cf.  G.  Morin,  in  Revue 
Benedictine  (1898),  xv.  97 — 99.  St.  Jerome  says  (1.  c,  c.  122)  that  the 
Latronianus  executed  with  Priscillian  was  a  very  learned  man  and  a 
distinguished  poet,  (valde  eruditus  et  in  metrico  opere  veteribus  com- 
parandus  .  .  .  extant  eius  ingenii  opera  diversis  metris  edita).  —  The  Priscil- 
lianist  writer  Dictinius,  bishop  of  Astorga,  before  his  conversion  in  400, 
composed  at  an  earlier  date  a  work  entitled  Libra  in  defence  of  a  white  lie 
(mendacium  necessarium) ;  it  is  possible  to  reconstruct  it  from  the  refuta- 
tion published  by  St.  Augustine  in  his  Contra  mendacium  (§  94,  9); 
cf.  Fr.  Lezius,  in  Abhandlungen,  AI.  v.  Oettingen  gewidmet,  Munich,  1898, 
pp.  113 — 124.  —  As  to  the  adversaries  of  Priscillian  the  words  of  Isidore 
of  Seville  (De  viris  ill.,  c.  15)  are  worthy  of  note:  Itacius  Hispaniarum 
episcopus,  cognomento  et  eloquio  clarus,  scripsit  quendam  librum  sub 
apologetici  specie,  in  quo  detestanda  Priscilliani  dogmata  et  maleficiorum 
eius  artes  libidinumque  eius  probra  demonstrat.  This  Itacius  is  sometimes 
identified  with  Idacius  of  Emerita,  and  again  with  Ithacius  of  Ossonoba. 
In  1528  Sichard  made  public  under  the  name  of  Idacius  Clarus  Hispanus 
a  work  Contra  Varimadum  Arianum  which  Chifflet  (1664)  wrongly  entitled 


430  SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

Contra  Marivadum  Arianum,  and  printed  among  the  works  of  Vigilius  ofTapsus 
[Migne,  PL.,  lxii.  351 — 434);  cf.  G.  Picker,  Studien  zu  Vigilius  von  Tapsus, 
Leipzig,  1897,  pp.  46  ff.  —  Anti-Priscillianist  likewise,  in  all  probability, 
was  the  work  of  Olympius,  a  Spanish  bishop  of  the  fourth  century:  Ad- 
versus  eos  qui  naturam  et  non  arbitrium  in  culpam  vocant  [Gennad.,  De 
viris  ill.,  c.  23;  cf.  Augustinus,  Contra  Julianum,  i.  8);  cf.  Künstle,  Anti- 
priscilliana,  pp.  162  168.  —  Towards  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century  the 
bishops  Pastor  and  Syagrius  (in  Gallecia  in  the  North-West  of  Spain)  under- 
took a  campaign  against  Priscillianism ,  the  former  in  a  compendium  of 
ecclesiastical  doctrine  [Gennad.,  1.  c,  c.  76),  the  latter  in  a  dogmatico- 
speculative  work  De  fide  {Gennad.,  1.  c. ,  c.  65).  Morin  who.  made  the 
discovery,  is  of  opinion  that  the  anti-Priscillianist  Profession  of  faith  errone- 
ously attributed  to  a  Council  of  Toledo  [Denzinger,  Enchiridion  symbolorum 
et  definitionum,  7.  ed.,  n.  113 — 131,  following  Hefele,  Konziliengeschichte, 
2.  ed.,  ii.  306 — 308)  is  in  reality  the  work  of  Pastor.  Künstle,  in  his  Anti- 
priscilliana, §  iv  (pp.  40 — 45):  Der  «Libellus  in  modum  symboli»  des  Bischofs 
Pastor  aus  Galläzien,  proves  this  to  be  the  fact.  The  work  of  Syagrius 
might  also  be  recovered,  he  thought,  through  a  more  careful  study  of  the 
manuscripts;  cf.  Revue  Benedictine  (1893),  x.  385 — 394;  (1895),  xii.  388; 
(1902),  xix.  237 — 242,  where  Morin  shows  that  in  the  days  of  Gennadius 
Syagrius  was  accounted  the  author  of  the  pseudo-Vigilian  treatise  De  Tri- 
nitate  (§  87,  4).  On  Syagrius  see  Künstle,  Antipriscilliana,  pp.  126 — 128, 
and  142 — 159.  On  the  treatise  «De  Trinitate»  see  Künstle,  ib.,  p.  184.  — 
There  is  still  extant  a  letter  of  Turibius,  bishop  of  Astorga,  written  to 
his  fellow-bishops  Hydatius  (Idacius)  and  Ceponius  about  446,  in  which 
he  denounces  the  blasphemous  contents  of  the  Priscillianist  apocrypha.  It 
may  be  read  among  the  works  of  Leo  the  Great  (Migne,  PL.,  liv.  693  to 
695).  For  the  life  of  St.  Turibius  see  V.  de  Buck,  in  Acta  SS.  Oct.  (Paris, 
1883),  xiii.  226  if.,  and  for  the  editions  of  his  letter,  Sc/wenemann,  Bibl. 
hist. -lit.  Patr.  lat.  ii.   1060  ff.     See  also  Künstle,  Antipriscilliana,  passim. 

4.  PHILASTRIUS.  —  About  the  year  383  probably,  the  literature 
of  the  Latin  Church  was  enriched  by  a  modest  counterpart  of  the 
Haereses  of  Epiphanius  (§71,  2).  This  was  the  Liber  de  haeresibus1 
composed  by  Philastrius,  bishop  of  Brixia  (Brescia),  who  died  before 
397.  Instead  of  the  80  heresies  of  Epiphanius  our  author  enumerates 
156,  of  which  28  are  pre-Christian,  the  other  128  are  Christian  heresies. 
In  Philastrius,  even  more  than  in  Epiphanius,  we  note  the  absence 
of  any  clear  definition  of  the  essentials  of  a  heresy  2.  The  relationship 
between  the  two  works  does  not  result  from  the  use  of  Epiphanius 
by  Philastrius,  but  from  their  mutual  dependence  on  the  Syntagma 
of  Hippolytus  (§  54,  3). 

Philastrius  was  first  edited  by  J.  Sichard,  Basel,  1528.  Gallandi,  Bibl. 
vet.  Patr.  vii.  475—521,  and  Migne,  1.  c,  reprint  the  edition  of  P.  Galeardi, 
Brescia,  1738.  The  last  edition  is  that  of  Fr.  Marx,  Vienna,  1898  (Corpus 
script,  eccles.  lat.  xxxviii).  Cf.  Th.  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons 
(1890),  ii  1,  233 — 239:  «Aus  Philaster  von  Brescia.»  The  sources  of 
Philastrius  are  discussed  by  R.  A.  Lipsius,  Zur  Quellenkritik  des  Epiphanios, 
Vienna,  1865,  4  ff;  Id.,  Die  Quellen  der  ältesten  Ketzergeschichte  neu 
untersucht,  Leipzig,  1875,  PP-  91  ff-  Fr.  Marx,  Über  die  Trierer  Handschrift 
des  Filastrius,   1904,  pp.  44—105.    P.  C.  Füret,  Etude  grammaticale  sur  le 

1  Migne,  PL,  xii.    11 11  — 1302.  2  Aug.,  Ep.  222,   ad  Quodvultdeum,  c.   2. 


§    9°-      ST.    AMBROSE.  43 1 

latin  de  S.  Filastrius  (Dissert.),  Erlangen,  1904.  —  Gaudentius,  successor  of 
Philastrius  in  the  see  of  Brescia,  (f  410  or  427),  composed  at  the  request 
of  a  certain  Benivolus  a  little  collection  of  his  homilies  [Migne,  PL.,  xx. 
827 — 1002),  in  all  21  tractatus;  the  last  one  treats  De  vita  et  obitu  B.  Phil- 
astrii.  The  Carmen  ad  laudem  B.  Philastrii  {Migne,  PL.  xx.  1003 — 1006) 
is  a  spurious  work.  Gaudentius  is  the  subject  of  an  extensive  treatment  at 
the  hands  of  Nirschl,  Lehrbuch  der  Patrologie  und  Patristik  ii.  488 — 493. 
For  the  diction  of  his  tractatus  cf.  K.  Paucker,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  die  Öster- 
reich. Gymnasien  (1881),  xxxii.  481. 

§  go.    St.  Ambrose. 

I.  HIS  LIFE.  —  Auxentius,  the  Arian  bishop  of  Milan,  owed  it 
to  the  favor  of  Valentinian  I.,  in  spite  of  such  opponents  as  Hilary 
of  Poitiers  (§  86,  13)  that  he  was  able,  to  maintain  himself  in  office 
until  his  death  in  374.  The  choice  of  a  successor  led  to  scenes  of 
violence  between  Arians  and  Catholics.  In  order  to  calm  the  agita- 
tion, Ambrose,  the  newly  appointed  consularis  or  governor  of  Emilia 
and  Liguria  (Northwestern  Italy),  appeared  in  the  church,  whereupon 
both  parties  as  though  yielding  to  higher  inspiration,  immediately 
united  in  choosing  him.  He  was  the  son  of  noble  Christian  parents, 
born  probably  at  Trier  about  340,  where  his  father  (also  called 
Ambrose)  was  praefectus  praetorio  Galliarum.  His  father  died  while 
Ambrose  was  still  young,  and  the  mother  returned  with  her  three 
children  to  Rome.  Ambrose  was  the  youngest,  and  according  to 
the  family  traditions  was  destined  for  political  life.  His  superior 
abilities  brought  about  his  rapid  advancement;  in  374,  at  the  latest, 
he  was  governor  of  Northern  Italy,  having  his  residence  at  Milan. 
He  was  also  still  a  catechumen,  i.  e.  unbaptized,  when  chosen  bishop 
of  that  city.  All  his  resistance  was  in  vain:  Quam  resistebam  ne 
ordinärer!  postremo  cum  cogerer,  saltern  ordinatio  protelaretur !  sed 
non  valuit  praescriptio,  praevaluit  impressio  *.  He  was  baptized  at  his 
own  request  by  an  orthodox  Catholic  priest,  Nov.  30.,  374,  but  it 
is  not  known  who  consecrated  him  bishop,  Dec.  7.,  374.  One  of  his 
first  cares  was  to  perfect  his  theological  education:  Factum  est  ut 
prius  docere  inciperem  quam  discere;  discendum  igitur  mihi  simul  et 
docendum  est,  quoniam  non  vacavit  ante  discere2.  Under  the  direc- 
tion of  the  priest  Simplicianus,  afterwards  his  successor,  he  devoted 
himself  to  the  study  of  the  Christian  writings,  principally  the  works 
of  the  Greek  Fathers :  among  the  earlier  ones  Clement  of  Alexandria 
and  Origen,  among  his  contemporaries  Basil  and  Didymus  the  Blind. 
His  own  writings  show  that  he  must  have  read  very  diligently  also 
the  works  of  the  Jew  Philo.  On  accepting  the  burden  of  the  episcopate 
he  distributed  among  the  poor  his  great  riches,  and  was  thenceforth 
a  model  of  unselfish  and  devoted  pastoral  charity.  He  was  easily 
accessible    to  all  men :    non  enim  vetabatur  quisquam   ingredi  aut  ei 

1  Ambr.,  Ep.  63,  65  2  Ambr.,  De  offic,  i.   1. 


432 


SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION, 


venientem  nuntiari  mos  erat1,  unless,  indeed,  the  crowd  of  his  peti- 
tioners prevented  access  to  him :  secludentibus  . . .  catervis  negotiosorum 
hominum,  quorum  innrmitatibus  serviebat2.  He  was  ever  gladsome 
with  the  glad,  and  sorrowful  with  the  sorrowful:  gaudens  cum 
gaudentibus  et  flens  cum  flentibus3.  His  own  tears  drew  tears  from 
his  penitents:  ita  flebat  ut  et  ilium  flere  compelleret 4.  Ambrose 
was  highly  gifted  as  an  orator,  whence  the  remarkable  influence 
exercised  by  his  homilies  and  discourses.  No  less  a  judge  than  Augu- 
stine has  written :  Verbis  eius  suspendebar  intentus  ...  et  delectabar 
suavitate  sermonis5;  per  illius  os  potissimum  me  Dominus  ab  errore 
liberavit 6.  The  words  of  Ambrose  were  eagerly  listened  to  elsewhere 
than  in  the  Cathedral  of  Milan.  His  episcopal  action  forms  an  essential 
part  of  the  history  of  his  time.  The  rulers  of  the  empire  were  under 
his  all-powerful  influence.  The  young  emperor  Gratian  (375 — 383) 
exhibited  a  filial  devotion  towards  the  great  bishop,  whose  impress 
is  clearly  marked  on  all  the  principal  events  of  that  reign.  Through 
Justina,  the  mother  and  guardian  of  the  youthful  Valentinian  II., 
Arianism  had  again  lifted  its  head.  But  the  fearless  and  firm  Ambrose 
opposed  with  success  all  the  intrigues  of  this  powerful  and  vindictive 
princess.  At  the  same  time  he  gave  proof  of  his  loyalty  to  the 
reigning  house  by  interceding,  at  the  request  of  Justina,  with  Maximus, 
the  assassin  of  Gratian  and  usurper  of  his  throne.  He  went  twice 
to  Trier  for  this  purpose,  in  383 — 384,  and  again  in  386 — 387. 
After  the  death  of  his  mother,  in  388,  Valentinian  became  still  more 
intimate  with  Ambrose.  It  was  the  influence  of  the  bishop  of  Milan 
that  caused  the  young  emperor  to  resist  with  firmness  the  petition 
of  the  Roman  Senate  for  the  restoration  of  the  Altar  of  Victory  to 
its  ancient  place  in  the  Senate-House,  whence  in  382  Gratian  had 
caused  it  to  be  removed.  Valentinian  was  murdered,  May  15.,  392 
by  Arbogast  at  Vienne  in  Gaul ;  Ambrose  had  already  received  his 
appeal  for  help,  and  was  hastening  to  his  royal  friend  and  disciple 
when  he  heard  mid- way  in  his  journey  the  sad  news  of  the  emperor's 
death.  Theodosius  the  Great  (379 — 395)  was  also  very  friendly  and 
trustful  towards  Ambrose;  it  was  only  for  a  brief  time  that  the  in- 
timacy of  their  relations  seemed  threatened.  Even  in  the  presence 
of  Theodosius,  Ambrose  maintained  the  absolute  independence  of 
the  Church,  both  internal  and  external.  As  a  member  of  the  Christian 
community  the  only  privilege  of  the  emperor  should  be  to  lend  his 
strong  right  arm  to  the  Church,  and  to  protect  her  rights.  In  388 
the  Christians  of  Callinicum  in  Mesopotamia  had  destroyed  a  Jewish 
synagogue,  for  which  act  Theodosius  took  severe  measures  against 
the  citizens  of  that  place;  at  the  request  of  Ambrose  the  emperor 
withdrew  his  edict.    It  was  also  at  the  instance  of  Ambrose  that  the 

1  Aug.,  Conf.,  vi.  3.  2  lb.  3  Paulimis,  Vita  S.  Ambros.,   c.  39. 

4  lb.  5  Conf.,  v.    13.  e  Ep.    147,   23. 


§  9°-    ST-  Ambrose.  433 

emperor  did  public  penance  for  the  massacre  of  Thessalonica  in  390, 
the  citizens  of  which  had  been  guilty  of  the  murder  of  several 
imperial  officials:  stravit  qmne  quo  utebatur  insigne  regium,  deflevit 
in  ecclesia  publice  peccatum  suum  .  .  .  gemitu  et  lacrymis  oravit 
veniam1.  Theodosius  died  Jan.  17.,  395,  and  was  soon  followed  by 
Ambrose,  April  4.,  397. 

2.  AMBROSE  AS  A  CHRISTIAN  WRITER.  —  There  would  be  reasonable 
cause  to  marvel  at  the  great  number  of  works  left  us  by  St.  Ambrose, 
in  spite  of  his  extensive  and  manifold  cares  as  bishop  and  statesman, 
were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  most  of  these  writings  are  the  mature 
expression  of  his  official  life  and  labors.  It  is  true  that,  so  far  as 
we  know,  very  few  of  his  homilies  or  discourses  have  reached  us  in 
their  original  form,  or  precisely  as  he  delivered  them.  At  the  same 
time  it  has  been  observed  that  most  of  his  «books»  are  really  homilies, 
somewhat  altered  for  publication,  but  even  still  easily  recognizable 
as  what  they  were.  They  are  nearly  all  practical  and  exhortatory  in 
contents  and  method.  The  thoughts  are  usually  taken  from  Holy 
Scripture,  particularly  the  Old  Testament,  but  in  the  mouth  of  Ambrose 
these  sacred  texts  are  made  to  reflect  every  phase  of  the  religious 
and  moral  life  of  man.  Even  in  works  that  are  not  the  outcome 
of  his  homiletic  preaching,  Ambrose  loves  to  dwell  on  the  moral 
side  of  Christian  life  and  teaching ;  he  is  a  genuine  Roman  in  whom 
the  ethico-practical  note  is  always  dominant.  He  has  neither  time 
nor  taste  for  philosophico-dogmatic  speculations.  In  all  his  writings 
he  aims  at  some  practical  purpose.  Hence  he  is  often  content  to 
reproduce  what  has  been  already  treated,  to  turn  over  for  another 
harvest  a  field  already  worked.  He  often  draws  abundantly  from 
the  ideas  of  some  earlier  writer,  Christian  or  pagan,  but  adapts  these 
thoughts  with  tact  and  intelligence  to  the  larger  public  of  his  time 
and  his  country.  In  formal  perfection  his  writings  leave  something 
to  be  desired;  a  fact  that  need  not  surprise  us  when  we  recall  the 
demands  made  on  the  time  of  such  a  busy  man.  His  diction  abounds 
in  unconscious  reminiscences  of  classical  writers,  Greek  and  Roman; 
he  is  especially  conversant  with  the  writings  of  Vergil.  His  style  is 
in  every  way  peculiar  and  personal,  and  is  never  wanting  in  a  certain 
dignified  reserve.  When  it  appears  more  carefully  studied  than  is 
usual  with  him,  its  characteristics  are  energetic  brevity  and  bold 
originality.  Those  of  his  writings  that  are  homiletic  in  origin  and 
form  naturally  show  the  great  oratorical  gifts  of  Ambrose;  in  them 
he  rises  occasionally  to  a  noble  height  of  poetical  inspiration.  His 
hymns  are  a  sufficient  evidence  of  the  complete  mastery  that  he  pos- 
sessed over  the  Latin  language. 

3.  EXEGETICAL  WRITINGS.  —  More  than  half  of  his  writings  are 
exegetical,  in  the  sense  that  their  text  is  biblical  (see  no.  2)  without 

1  Ambr.,  De  obitu  Theodosii  oratio,  c.  34. 
Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  28 


434 


SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 


however  any  specific  intention  of  formally  commenting  the  scriptural 
passages  under  consideration.  We  shall  briefly  describe  these  writings, 
according  to  the  sequence  of  the  biblical  books  and  as  they  are 
found  in  the  current  editions  of  Ambrose.  There  is  still  much  un- 
certainty as  to  their  chronological  sequence.  The  history  of  creation, 
as  told  in  Genesis,  is  the  subject  of:  Hexaemeron  libri  sex1,  one  of 
the  most  important  of  the  writings  of  Ambrose,  made  up  from  nine 
homilies  delivered  on  six  consecutive  days,  perhaps  in  389,  certainly 
after  386.  De  paradiso2,  De  Cain  et  Abel  libri  duo3,  De  Noe  et  area4, 
were  probably  written  in  close  chronological  order,  perhaps  about 
376 — 379.  Kellner  attributes  De  Noe  et  area  to  the  end  of  386. 
Its  text  presents  a  number  of  hiatus.  The  history  of  the  patriarchs 
is  treated  in  the  works:  De  Abraham  libri  duo5,  De  Isaac  et  animac, 
De  bono  mortis7,  De  fuga  saeculi8,  De  Jacob  et  vita  beata  libri  duo9, 
De  Joseph  patriarcha 10,  De  benedictionibus  patriarcharum  n.  All  these 
writings  seem  to  belong  to  the  years  388 — 390.  The  De  Isaac  et 
anima  is  thus  entitled  because  the  story  of  Isaac  and  Rebecca  is 
expounded  as  typical  of  the  relations  of  Christ  to  the  human  soul. 
De  bono  mortis  is  a  continuation  of  the  former  work,  as  the  author 
himself  declares,  and  aims  at  demonstrating  that  death  is  no  evil, 
but  rather  a  benefit.  In  the  De  fuga  saeculi  he  discusses  the  flight 
of  Jacob  into  Mesopotamia.  The  blessing  given  by  Jacob  to  his  sons 
is  the  subject  of  the  Benedictiones  patriarcharum.  The  Lenten  fast 
of  forty  days  is  the  subject  of  the  homilies  collected  in:  De  Elia  et 
ieiunio 12.  In  De  Nabuthe  Iezraelita™  he  thunders  against  the  avarice  of 
the  rich  (3  Kings  xxi),  and  in  De  Tobia  u  against  usury.  The  historian 
of  contemporary  Roman  life  finds  an  abundant  harvest  in  these  three 
works,  the  first  and  second  of  which  were  certainly  written  after  386. 
In  the:  De  interpellatione  Job  et  David  libri  quattuor15,  written  accord- 
ing to  the  Maurine  editors  about  383,  he  discusses  the  doubtings 
and  complainings  of  Job  and  David  in  the  matter  of  the  misfortunes 
of  the  good  and  the  happiness  of  the  impious.  In  the:  Apologia 
prophetae  David16,  written  about  383 — 385,  he  undertakes  to  diminish 
the  scandal  of  David's  double  sin  (adulterium  et  homicidium).  The: 
Apologia  altera  prophetae  David17,  written  with  a  similar  intention, 
is  very  probably  spurious.    Quite  unlike  the  preceding  works  are  the : 


1  Migfie,  PL.,  xiv.   123  — 

274.              2  lb.,  xiv.   275—314. 

3  Ib.,  xiv.  315 — 360. 

4  Ib.,  xiv.   361 — 416. 

5  Ib.,  xiv.  419 — 500. 

6  Ib.,  xiv.    501 — 534. 

7  Ib.,  xiv.   539—568. 

8  Ib.,   xiv.   569 — 596. 

9  Ib.,  xiv.   597-638. 

10  Ib.,  xiv.   641—672. 

11  lb.,  xiv.   673 — 694. 

12  Ib.,  xiv.  697 — 728. 

18  Ib.,  xiv.   731—756. 

"  Ib.,  xiv.   759—794- 

15  Ib.,  xiv.   797 — 850. 

16  Ib.,  xiv.   851—884;   the 

:  additional  ad  Theodosium  Aug 

17  Ib.,  xiv.  887—916. 

ira  Augustum  is  not  original 


§    9°-      ST-    AMBROSE.  435 

Enarrationes  in  duodecim  Psalmos  Davidicos  (Ps.  I  35—40  43  45  47 
48  6 1)1,  written  at  different  times,  and:  Expositio  in  Psalmum  1182, 
written  probably  about  386 — 388.  In  both  works  there  is  a  stricter 
application  of  the  exegetical  method.  The:  Commentarius  in  Cantica 
canticorum 3  was  compiled  from  scattered  utterances  of  Ambrose, 
and  also  from  long  excerpts  of  a  formal  commentary  on  the  Can- 
ticle of  canticles,  by  the  Cistercian  monk  Wilhelm  of  St.  Theodorich 
near  Reims  (f  1148).  The:  Expositio  Esaiae  prophetae  has  perished; 
the  fragments  of  it  collected  among  the  writings  of  St.  Augustine  may 
be  read  in  the  Ballerini  edition  (ii.  895  —  898).  The:  Expositio  Evangelii 
secundum  Lucam  libris  decern  comprehensa 4,  the  longest  work  of 
St.  Ambrose,  was  not  written  before  388,  though  composed  from  earlier 
homilies.  Since  the  sixteenth  century  the  origin  of  the:  Commentaria 
in  tredecim  epistolas  B.  Pauli5  has  been  much  discussed;  it  is  a 
remarkable  work  both  in  contents  and  form.  The  still  uncertain 
author  declares,  apropos  of  1  Tim.  iii.  15,  that  St.  Damasus  (366 — 384) 
was  then  (hodie)  the  reigning  pope.  In  one  of  his  works 6  St.  Augu- 
stine quotes  some  words  of  this  commentary  (Rom.  v.  12)  under  the 
name  of  Sanctus  Hilarius;  at  the  same  time  it  can  be  the  work 
neither  of  Hilary  of  Poitiers  nor  of  Hilary  of  Rome  (§  87,  5).  In 
the  fifteenth  and  the  sixteenth  centuries  the  work  was  attributed  to 
St.  Ambrose.  In  deference  to  the  objections  of  Erasmus,  the  author 
has  since  then  been  known  as  Ambrosiaster  or  Pseudo-Ambrosius, 
nor  has  any  progress  been  made  in  our  knowledge  of  his  personality. 
Apropos  of  the  exegetical  works  of  Ambrose,  mention  may  be  made 
of  the:  Lex  Dei  sive  Mosaicarum  et  Romanarum  legum  collatio  (not 
found  in  the  editions  of  St.  Ambrose),  a  work  in  which  an  attempt 
is  made  to  exhibit  the  Mosaic  legislation  concerning  the  more  com- 
mon delinquencies  as  the  basis  of  the  Roman  legislation.  Mommsen, 
the  latest  editor  (1890),  rejects  the  Ambrosian  authorship  of  the 
work.  We  have  already  described  the  Pseudo-Hegesippus  (§  88,  9). 
4.  EXEGETICAL  WRITINGS  (CONTINUED).  —  The  peculiar  coloring 
of  the  exegetical  writings  of  St.  Ambrose  is  owing  to  his  allegorico- 
mystical  interpretation  of  the  Scripture-text.  He  is  wont  not  to  stop 
at  the  letter,  but  proceeds  at  once  to  recognize  a  certain  deeper  or 
higher  sense  to  which  he  devotes  all  his  attention.  Under  his  hand 
the  slightest  external  details,  circumstances  apparently  the  most  in- 
significant in  a  biblical  event  are  transformed  and  made  to  offer  most 
profound  and  valuable  instruction  for  the  faith  and  the  life  of  Christians. 
He  does  not  undertake  to  justify  or  elaborate  his  method;  only 
occasionally  does  he  insist  on  its  value  and  its  necessity.  He  distin- 
guishes a  double  scriptural  sense  (littera  and  sensus  altior).    Accord- 

1  Ib.,  xiv.   921  —  1 180.  2  Ib.,  xv.    1 197 — 1526. 

3  Ib.,  xv.    1851 — 1962.  *  Ib.,  xv.    1527— 1S50. 

5  Ib.,  xvii.  45 — -508.  6  Contra  duas  epistolas  Pelagianorum,   iv.    14. 


436  SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

ing  to  its  contents  or  subject-matter,  the  scriptural  sense  is  triple: 
sensus  naturalis  (natural  truths),  sensus  mysticus  (mysteries  of  faith), 
and  sensus  moralis  (moral  precepts).  St.  Jerome  long  ago  took 
note  of  the  relation  of  dependency  between  Ambrose  and  Origen 
(§  39»  5)-  Concerning  the  Hexaemeron  of  the  former,  Jerome  says1 
that  he  so  worked  over  (sic  compilavit)  the  Hexaemeron  of  Origen, 
ut  magis  Hippolyti  sententias  Basiliique  sequeretur.  He  means  that 
Ambrose  took  the  work  of  Origen  as  his  model,  but  in  many  details 
of  the  execution  rather  inclined  to  the  views  of  Hippolytus  and  Basil; 
this  he  did  because  he  knew  how  unreliable  the  great  Alexandrine 
often  was.  It  is  also  homilies  of  St.  Basil  that  were  used  by  Ambrose 
for  the:  De  Elia  et  ieiunio,  De  Nabuthe  Jezraelita,  and  De  Tobia. 
At  the  same  time  it  may  be  said  that  the  principal  source  of  his 
allegorico-mystical  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament  is  the  Jewish 
writer  Philo;  the  tractates  of  the  latter  are  the  unmistakable  basis 
of  the  Ambrosian  writings:  De  paradiso,  De  Cain  et  Abel,  De  Noe 
et  area,  De  Abraham,  and  others.  So  numerous  are  the  echoes  and 
reminiscences  of  Philo  scattered  through  these  writings  that  very 
often  successful  attempts  have  been  made  to  reconstruct  from  the 
works  of  Ambrose  the  much  corrupted  text  of  Philo.  It  is  to  be 
noted,  however,  that  Ambrose  never  abandons  his  Christian  stand- 
point. From  the  Jew  he  has  merely  learned  how  to  read  into  the 
narrative  of  Genesis  a  doctrinal  sense  that  he  has  first  acquired  else- 
where. He  applies  the  same  method  to  the  New  Testament.  In  the 
commentary  on  St.  Luke  the  biblical  text  is  made  to  serve  purposes 
of  instruction  and  edification,  but  with  a  thorough  ignoring  of  all 
the  rules  of  hermeneutics,  and  frequently  in  so  forced  and  artificial 
a  manner  as  to  make  it  hard  to  follow  with  any  ease  the  mental 
process  of  the  interpreter. 

5.  ASCETICO-MORAL  WRITINGS.  —  The  most  important,  though 
not  the  earliest  of  the  moral  treatises  of  Ambrose,  is  his  work  in 
three  books:  De  officiis  ministrorum 2,  a  counterpart  of  Cicero's  three 
books  De  officiis.  It  was  written  after  386.  Cicero  had  composed  his 
work  for  his  son  Marcus;  even  so  Ambrose  composed  his  treatise 
for  his  spiritual  sons,  the  ecclesiastics  or  ministers  (ministri)  of  the 
Church:  sicut  Tullius  ad  erudiendum  filium,  ita  ego  quoque  ad  vos 
informandos  filios  meos3.  Like  Cicero  also,  he  had  in  view  a  far 
wider  circle  of  readers.  It  was  his  purpose  to  prepare  a  manual  of 
morality  for  all  Christians.  In  the  order  and  disposition  of  his  doctrine 
he  follows  the  great  Roman  very  closely ;  nevertheless,  the  antithesis 
between  the  philosophical  morality  of  the  pagan  and  the  morality 
of  the  Christian  churchman  is  remarkably  striking.  In  his  exhortations, 
particularly,  Ambrose  shows  an  irresistible  power.     He  also  wrote  a 


1  Ep.  84,  7.  2  Migne,  PL.,  xvi.  23—184.  3  De  offic 


1.  7. 


§    9°-      ST-    AMBROSE.  437 

series  of  works  concerning  virginity  or  relating  to  the  state  of  con- 
secrated Christian  virgins.  Indeed,  he  treated  this  theme  so  often  and 
with  such  effect  that  not  a  few  protested  with  tears  and  remon- 
strances: Virginitatem  doces  et  persuades  plurimis  .  .  .,  puellas  nubere 
prohibes1.  In  377,  at  the  request  of  his  beloved  sister  Marcellina,  he 
collected  a  number  of  these  discourses  into  three  little  books  dedicated 
to  her:  De  virginibus  ad  Marcellinam  sororem  suam2.  The  first  book 
treats  of  the  dignity  and  excellency  of  virginity,  the  second  offers 
the  consecrated  virgin  suitable  instructions  on  her  holy  state,  and  the 
third  contains  some  particular  instructions  for  his  sister.  Of  this  little 
book,  probably  the  first  of  all  written  by  St.  Ambrose,  Jerome  says : 
Tanto  se  effudit  eloquio,  ut,  quidquid  ad  laudes  virginum  pertinet,  ex- 
quisierit,  expresserit,  ordinarit3.  The  same  subject-matter  recurs  in: 
De  viduis4,  written  in  377  or  378;  De  virginitate5,  probably  written 
also  in  the  year  378;  De  institutione  virginis  et  S.  Mariae  virginitate 
perpetua  ad  Eusebium6,  written  in  391  or  392;  Exhortatio  virginitatis7, 
composed  in  393  or  394.  As  to  the  work  or  discourse:  De  lapsu 
virginis  consecratae 8,  Dom  Morin  thinks  that  it  is  really  a  work  of 
Ambrose,  but  that  owes  its  actual  form  to  some  one  of  his  auditors. 
6.  DOGMATIC  WRITINGS.  —  The  five  books :  De  fide  ad  Gratianum 
Augustum9,  were  composed  at  the  request  of  the  young  emperor. 
They  contain  a  thorough  and  convincing  defence  of  the  true  divinity 
of  the  Son  against  the  objections  of  the  Arians ;  the  first  two  books 
were  written  in  378,  the  other  three  in  379  or  380.  At  the  emperor's 
request  he  also  composed,  in  381,  the  three  books:  De  Spiritu  Sancto 
ad  Gratianum  Augustum  10.  In  them  he  defends  the  consubstantiality 
of  the  Holy  Ghost;  his  masters  and  guides  are  Athanasius,  Basil  the 
Great,  and  Didymus  the  Blind.  Arianism  and  the  circle  of  Arians 
about  Gratian  gave  rise,  probably  in  382,  to  another  work:  De  in- 
carnationis  Dominicae  sacramento  n.  He  is  not  the  author  of  a  work 
often  attributed  to  him:  De  fide  orthodoxa  contra  Arianos12  (cf.  §  81/,  4). 
In  the  second  book  of  his  Eranistes  or  Polymorphus,  Theodoret  of 
Cyrus  has  preserved  a  long  excerpt  from  the  Expositio  fidei  of  Am- 
brose13. The:  Explanatio  symboli  ad  initiandos,  is  also  genuine14; 
another  recension  of  it  may  be  seen  elsewhere 15.  We  have  already 
referred  (§  87,  2)  to  the  spurious:  Exhortatio  S.  Ambrosii  episcopi 
ad  neophytos  de  symbolo.  There  is  no  sufficient  reason  to  doubt 
the  genuineness  of  his  De  mysteriis 16,  though  the  date  of  its  composi- 
tion  is   still   uncertain.     It   is   addressed   to  the  newly  baptized   and 

2  Migne,  PL.,  xvi.    187 — 232. 
Migne,  PL.,  xvi.   233 — 262.  5  Ib.,  xvi.   265 — 302. 

7  Ib.,  xvi.   335—364.  8  Ib.,  xvi.  367—384. 

10  Ib.,  xvi.   703—816.  n  Ib.,  xvi.  817—846. 

13  lb.,  xvi.  847—850.  "  Ib.,  xvii.   1155— 1160. 

16  Ib.,  xvi.  389 — 410. 


1  De 

virginitate,  c.   5. 

3  Ep. 

22,   22.              4 

•  Ib., 

xvi.  305—334. 

1  Ib., 

xvi.   527 — 698. 

13  Ib., 

xvii.   549 — 568. 

15  Ib., 

lvii.  853—858. 

438  SECOND   PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

treats  of  Baptism,  Confirmation  and  the  Eucharist.  A  close  kinship 
of  contents  exists  between  the  De  mysteriis  and  the  six  books  or 
discourses  De  sacramentis1.  It  is  probable  that  the  latter  work  is 
not  a  later  imitation  or  recension  of  the  De  mysteriis,  but  the  same 
work  indiscreetly  and  in  an  imperfect  form  published  by  some  auditor 
of  Ambrose.  In  the  two  books  De  poenitentia  2,  composed  according 
to  the  Benedictine  editors  in  384,  he  refutes  the  teachings  of  the 
Novatians ;  the  work  abounds  in  valuable  proofs  of  the  power  of  the 
Church  to  remit  sins,  of  the  necessity  of  confession,  and  of  the 
meritorious  character  of  good  works.  St.  Augustine  frequently  quotes 
from  a  lost  work  of  Ambrose:  De  sacramento  regenerationis  sive 
de  philosophia.  Another  work:  Ad  Pansophium  puerum,  written  in 
393 — 394»  is  known  to  us  only  by  its  title.  He  is  not  the  author 
of  the  work  published  by  Caspari  in  1883:  Altercatio  S.  Ambrosii 
contra  eos,  qui  animam  non  confitentur  esse  facturam,  aut  ex  traduce 
esse  dicunt. 

7.  SERMONS  AND  LETTERS.  —  In  the  two  books:  De  excessu 
fratris  sui  Satyri3,  he  left  to  posterity  a  worthy  memorial  of  his 
beloved  brother  and  intimate  companion  who  died  suddenly  in  379. 
The  first  book  contains  the  sermon  preached  by  Ambrose  at  the 
funeral  of  Satyrus ;  the  second  book,  entitled :  De  fide  resurrectionis, 
is  a  consolatory  discourse  preached  at  the  tomb  of  his  brother  on 
the  eighth  day  after  the  burial.  More  famous  still  are  the  funeral 
discourses  on  Valentinian  II.  and  Theodosius  the  Great:  De  obitu 
Valentiniani  consolatio4,  delivered  in  August  392,  at  the  burial  of 
the  murdered  emperor,  and:  De  obitu  Theodosii  oratio5,  delivered 
Feb.  26.,  395,  during  the  solemn  obsequies  of  the  great  emperor. 
Both  of  these  discourses  are  held  to  be  models  of  rhetorical  com- 
position, and  are  likewise  historical  authorities  of  prime  importance. 
The :  Sermo  contra  Auxentium  de  basilicis  tradendis  6,  belongs  to  the 
trying  but  glorious  days  of  386.  A  Scythian  priest  Mercurinus  had 
been  made  bishop  of  Milan  by  the  Arians  under  the  name  of  Auxentius, 
whereupon  Valentinian  II.,  or  rather  his  mother  Justina,  demanded 
the  cession  of  a  Catholic  church  for  the  use  of  Auxentius  and  the 
Arians,  which  request  was  energetically  refused  by  Ambrose.  About 
the  same  time  he  had  the  happiness  to  discover  the  bodies  of  the 
holy  martyrs  Gervasius  and  Protasius;  in  a  letter  to  his  sister  Mar- 
cellina  he  inclosed  two  short  discourses  that  he  delivered  on  this 
occasion7.  Very  insignificant  in  contents,  and  of  doubtful  authenti- 
city, are  three  discourses  on  Lk.  xii.  33:  Vendite  omnia  quae 
possidetis   et   date   eleemosynam.     They  were   first   made   known   in 

1  Migne,   PL.,  xvi.  417 — 462.      2  lb.  xvi.  465 — 524. 
3  Ib.,  xvi.  1289— 1354.      4  Ib.,  xvi.  1357 — 1384. 
5  Ib.,  xvi.  1385 — 1406.      6  Ib.,  xvi.  1007— 1018. 
7  Ep.  22:  ib.,  xvi.  1019— 1026. 


§    90.      ST.    AMBROSE.  439 

1834  by  De  Corrieris,  and  are  found  in  the  Ballerini  edition1  of  Am- 
brose. Mention  has  already  been  made  of  many  other  exegetical, 
dogmatic,  and  ascetico-moral  discourses.  —  The  Benedictine  editors 
enumerate  (1690)  91  letters  of  Ambrose2  and  believed  themselves  justi- 
fied in  affixing  a  date  to  most  of  them  (1 — 63).  Though  the  number 
of  the  letters  has  not  grown,  very  useful  work  was  done  by  Ihm 
in  1890  in  order  to  ascertain  their  chronology.  Some  of  these 
letters  are  confidential  in  nature  and  personal  in  character;  most  of 
them,  however,  are  official  communications,  memorials  on  public 
affairs,  synodal  reports,  and  the  like.  They  are  entitled  to  a  place 
among  the  most  important  of  contemporary  historical  authorities, 
and  they  afford  abundant  evidence  of  the  distinguished  position  and 
great  influence  that  the  writer  had  in  Church  and  State. 

8.  HYMNS  AND  OTHER  POEMS.  —  The  hymns  deserve  a  special 
notice.  The  example  of  his  Arian  rivals  moved  him  to  compose 
religious  chants  which  he  caused  to  be  sung  by  the  people  during 
divine  service.  The  earliest  and  most  important  reference  to  these 
hymns  dates  from  the  year  386,  when  in  reply  to  a  reproach  of  the 
Arians  he  wrote  as  follows:  Hymnorum  quoque  meorum  carminibus 
deceptum  populum  ferunt.  Plane  nee  hoc  abnuo.  Grande  carmen 
(=  a  great  charm)  istud  est  quo  nihil  potentius.  Quid  enim  potentius 
quam  confessio  Trinitatis  quae  quotidie  totius  populi  ore  celebratur! 
Certatim  (=  alternatively?)  omnes  student  fidem  fateri,  Patrem  et 
Filium  et  Spiritum  Sanctum  norunt  versibus  praedicare.  Facti  sunt 
igitur  omnes  magistri,  qui  vix  poterant  esse  discipuli3.  By  this  intro- 
duction of  the  hymns  into  the  liturgical  service  Ambrose  enriched 
and  developed  it  according  to  the  manner  of  his  Oriental  contempora- 
ries. The  pious  custom  spread  from  Milan  through  all  the  Western 
churches.  A  new  kind  of  religious  chants 'arose  known  as  «Ambro- 
sian  Hymns»  —  they  were  composed  after  the  manner  of  his  hymns, 
or  rather  (to  be  more  precise)  they  were  sung  in  the  churches  after 
the  Ambrosian  manner.  St.  Isidore  of  Seville  says  of  them :  Hymni 
ex  eius  [Ambrosii]  nomine  Ambrosiani  vocantur.  .  .  .  Carmina  autem 
quaecumque  in  laudem  Dei  dicuntur  hymni  vocantur4.  Four  Am- 
brosian hymns  are  vouched  for  as  authentic  by  historical  evidence, 
and  in  particular  by  the  testimony  of  St.  Augustine.  They  are: 
Aeterne  rerum  Conditor,  Deus  Creator  omnium,  lam  surgit  hora 
tertia,  Veni  Redemptor  gentium.  These  hymns  are  composed  in 
iambic  dimeters  and  arranged  in  strophes  of  four  verses  each.  The 
meter  is  scrupulously  correct  and  the  laws  of  quantity  rigorously 
observed;  the  diction  is  at  once  lucid  and  simple,  elevated  and 
grave.  A  fifth  hymn,  to  Saints  Gervasius  and  Protasius,  exhibits 
intrinsic    evidence    of   the    authorship    of  Ambrose;    the   writer   calls 

1  v.   195 — 222.  2  Migne,  PL.,  xvi.  876 — 1286. 

3  Sermo  contr.  Aux.,  c.   34.  4  Isid.  Hisp.,  De  eccl.  off.,  i.  6. 


440  SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

himself  the  repertor  (see  no.  7)  of  their  bodies.  Milanese  tradition, 
as  sifted  and  verified  by  Biraghi  (1862)  and  Dreves  (1893),  guarantees 
the  Ambrosian  authorship  of  another  series  of  hymns.  —  It  used  to 
be  believed  that,  on  the  occasion  of  the  baptism  of  St.  Augustine  by 
St.  Ambrose  in  387,  they  were  divinely  inspired  to  sing  alternately  the 
canticle  known  as  the  Te  Deuni  laudamus.  It  is  certain  that  this  hymn 
is  not  the  work  of  these  writers,  but  early  in  the  sixth  century,  however, 
it  was  already  a  well-known  hymn.  Dom  Morin  attributes  it  to  Nicetas 
of  Remesiana  (see  no.  12).  Ambrose  composed  also  some  metrical 
inscriptions  for  churches  and  for  the  tombs  or  monuments  of  departed 
friends  (tituli).  A  cycle  of  21  distichs  composed  in  explanation  of  a 
series  of  paintings  on  the  walls  of  the  Cathedral  of  Milan  and  first 
edited  by  Juretus  in  1589,  is  declared  spurious  by  some;  but  Biraghi 
(1862)  and  Merkle   (1896)  maintain   that   these    distichs  are  genuine. 

9.  COMPLETE    EDITIONS.      VERSIONS    OF    SELECT    WRITINGS.    —   Among   the 

earlier  editors  of  the  writings  of  Ambrose,  the  most  successful,  admittedly, 
were  J.  du  Frische  and  N.  Le  Nourry.  Their  edition  appeared  at  Paris, 
1686 — 1690,  2  vols.  The  second  volume  contains  a  large  Appendix  with 
separate  pagination,  in  qua  post  triplicem  eiusdem  S.  Doctoris  vitam  con- 
tinentur  varii  tractatus  suppositii.  This  edition  was  twice  reprinted  at 
Venice,  1748 — 1751,  4  vols. ;  1781 — 1782,  8  vols.  It  is  reprinted  in  Migne, 
PL.,  Paris,  1845  and  1866,  xiv — xvii.  With  the  aid  of  Milanese  manuscripts 
a  new  edition  was  brought  out  by  P.  A.  Ballerini,  Milan,  1875 — 1883, 
6  vols.  M.  Ihm  is  correct  when  he  writes,  Studia  Ambrosiana  (see  no.  1 1)  p.  13 : 
Plane  Maurinorum  studiis  subnititur,  quorum  diligentiam  et  acumen  in  sua 
ipse  editione  assecutus  non  est.  So  far  only  three  volumes  of  the  Vienna 
edition  have  appeared  (Corpus  script,  eccles.  lat.  xxxii).  They  are  edited 
by  K.  Schenkl  and  contain  exegetical  writings  of  Ambrose.  The  third 
volume  is  entitled :  Expositio  evangelii  secundum  Lucam.  Rec.  K.  Schenkl. 
Opus  auctoris  morte  interruptum  absolvit  H.  Schenkl,  Vienna,  1902.  — 
Select  writings  of  St.  Ambrose  were  translated  into  German  by  Fr.  X. 
Schulte,  Kempten,  187 1 — 1877,  2  vols.  (Bibl.  der  Kirchenväter),  into  English 
by  H.  de  Romestin,  A  Select  Library  of  Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers, 
series  II,  vol.  x,  New  York,   1896. 

10.  SEPARATE    EDITIONS.     TRANSLATIONS.     INVESTIGATIONS.    —    Exegetical 

works:  In  Studia  Ambrosiana  (see  no.  11)  pp.  95 — 119,  M.  Ihm  has 
contributed  emendations  to  the  text  of  Expositio  in  Ps.  118,  with  the  aid 
of  an  eleventh-century  Trier  codex.  Ballerini  has  lately  (iii.  349  ff.)  defended 
the  Ambrosian  authorship  of  Ambrosiaster.  J.  Langen,  De  commentariorum 
in  epist.  Paulinas  qui  Ambrosii,  et  quaestionum  biblicarum  quae  Augustini 
nomine  feruntur  scriptore  (Progr.,  Bonn,  1880),  is  of  opinion  that  the  latter 
work  belongs  to  the  Luciferian  Faustinus  (§  87,  3):  he  would  likewise  be 
the  author  of  Quaestiones  Veteris  et  No  vi  Testamenti  [Migne,  PL.,  xxxv. 
2213 — 2416;  the  latter  work  is  found  among  the  writings  of  St.  Augustine). 
Anonymi,  vulgo  Ambrosiastri,  commentaria  in  epistolas  Pauli  ex  codice 
Casin.  n.  150,  saec.  vi,  omnium  vetustissimo ,  in  Spicilegium  Casinense 
(1901),  iii  11,  383  f.  A.  Souter,  The  Genuine  Prologue  to  Ambrosiaster 
on  2  Corinthians,  in  Journal  of  Theological  Studies  (1902— 1903),  iv.  89  to 
92.  C.  Marold  (in  Zeitschr.  f.  wissenschaftl.  Theol,  1884,  xxvii.  415—470) 
maintains  that  the  author  known  as  Ambrosiaster  is  not  identical  with 
the  author  of  the  Quaestiones,  but  he  does  not  attempt  to  solve  the  problem 


§    9°-      ST.    AMBROSE.  44 1 

of  the  former's  personality.  In  the  Revue  d'hist.  et  de  litte'rat.  religieuses, 
1899,  iv.  97 — 121,  G.  Morin  proposes  as  the  author  of  both  works  the 
converted  Jew  Isaac,  who  lived  in  the  latter  half  of  the  fourth  century 
and  is  known  as  the  author  of  a  very  insipid  Liber  fidei  de  sancta  trinitate 
et  de  incarnatione  Domini  (Migne,  PG.,  xxxiii.  1541 — 1546,  cf.  Gennad., 
De  viris  ill.,  c.  26).  A  later  article  of  Morin,  Hilarius  l'Ambrosiaster,  in 
Revue  Be'nedictine  (1903),  xx.  113 — 124,  suggests  as  author  of  both  works 
Decimus  Hilarianus  Hilarius,  an  illustrious  layman  of  the  latter  part  of 
the  fourth  century;  he  would  also  be  the  author  of  Contra  Arianos  (§  86,  7). 
F.  Cumont,  La  polemique  de  l'Ambrosiaster  contre  les  pa'iens,  with  an 
appendix:  L'Ambrosiaster  et  le  droit  romain,  in  Revue  d'hist.  et  de  litt, 
religieuses  (1903),  viii.  417 — 440.  C.  H  Turner,  Niceta  and  Ambrosiaster, 
in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1906),  vii.  203 — 2iq  355 — 372;  Id.,  Am- 
brosiaster and  Damasus,  ib.,  vii.  281 — 284.  To  Isaac  are  also  attributed 
the  Expositio  fidei,  by  C.  P.  Caspari,  in  Kirchenhistorische  Anecdota, 
Christiania,  1883,  i.  304 — 308,  and  Gesta  inter  Liberium  et  Felicem  epi- 
scopos,  in  the  Collectio  Avellana,  edited  by  O.  Günther  (Corpus  script,  ec- 
cles.  lat.  xxxv),  pp.  1  —  5;  cf.  jf.  Wittig,  Papst  Damasus  I.,  Rome,  1902,  passim. 
Th.  Mommsen  prepared  an  edition  of  the  Collatio  legum  Mosaicarum  et 
Romanarum,  in  Collectio  librorum  iuris  anteiustiniani,  edd.  P.  Krüger, 
Th.  Mommsen,  G.  Studemund,  Berlin,  1890,  iii.  107 — 198.  The  pertinent 
litterature  is  in  Teuff el- Schwabe,  Gesch.  der  röm.  Litt.,  5.  ed.,  p.  n  24.  — 
Ascetico-moral  books:  De  officiis  ministrorum  was  edited  separately  by 
y.  G.  Krabinger,  Tübingen,  1857.  It  was  translated  into  German  by 
C.  Haas,  Die  Pastoralschriften  des  hl.  Gregor  d.  Gr.  und  des  hl.  Am- 
brosius  von  Mailand,  übersetzt,  Tübingen,  1862,  pp.  271fr.,  also  by  Schulte, 
Kempten,  1877  (see  no.  9);  cf.  F.  Hasler,  Über  das  Verhältnis  der  heid- 
nischen und  christlichen  Ethik  auf  Grund  Vergleichung  des  Ciceronianischen 
Buches  De  officiis  mit  dem  gleichnamigen  des  hl.  Ambrosius,  Munich,  1866. 
P.  Ewald,  Der  Einfluß  der  stoisch- ciceronianischen  Moral  auf  die  Dar- 
stellung der  Ethik  bei  Ambrosius  (Inaug.-Diss.),  Leipzig,  1881.  R.  Thamin, 
St.  Ambroise  et  la  morale  chretienne  au  IVe  siecle,  Paris,  1895.  ^-  Schmidt, 
Ambrosius,  sein  Werk  De  officiis  libri  iii,  und  die  Stoa  (Inaug.-Diss.),  Göt- 
tingen, 1897.  On  the  De  lapsu  virginis  consecratae  see  no.  12.  Th.  Chiuso, 
Gli  scritti  di  S.  Ambrogio  sopra  la  verginitä  messi  in  lingua  italiana,  2.  ed., 
Turin,  1885.  —  Dogmatic  writings:  G.  Mercati,  Le  titulationes  nelle  opere 
dogmatiche  di  S.  Ambrogio,  in  Ambrosiana  (see  no.  11).  Th.  Schermann, 
Die  Kapitelüberschr.  der  dogmatischen  Bücher  des  hl.  Ambrosius,  in  Röm. 
Quartalschr.  (1902),  xvi.  353 — 355 ;  Id.,  Die  griechischen  Quellen  des  hl.  Am- 
brosius in  Lib.  iii  de  Sp.  Sancto,  Munich,  1902.  Some  of  the  dogmatic 
writings  of  Ambrose  were  reprinted  by  H.  Hurler  in  his  Ss.  Patr.  opusc. 
sei.  (series  I):  De  poenitentia  t.  v;  De  mysteriis  t.  vii;  De  fide  ad  Gra- 
tianum  Augustum  t.  xxx.  The  last  named  work  is  contained  also  in  the 
Bibliotheca  Sanctorum  Patrum,  series  V,  vols,  v  vi,  Rome,  1905  1906.  For 
the  history  of  the  Explanatio  symboli  ad  initiandos  see  C.  P.  Caspari, 
Ungedruckte  Quellen  zur  Geschichte  des  Taufsymbols  und  der  Glaubens- 
regel, Christiania,  1869,  ii.  48 — 127.  For  the  De  mysteriis  and  De 
sacramentis  cf.  F.  Probst,  Liturgie  des  4.  Jahrhunderts  und  deren  Reform, 
Münster,  1893,  PP-  232 — 239-  Th.  Schermann,  Die  pseudo-ambrosianische 
Schrift  «De  Sacramentis».  Ihre  Überlieferung  und  Quellen.  In  Röm. 
Quartalschr.  (1903),  xvii.  36—55  237 — 255.  The  booklet  on  the  origin 
of  the  soul  is  found  in  Caspari,  Kirchenhistorische  Anecdota,  Christiania, 
1883,  i.  225  —  247;  cf.  ib.,  pp.  xi — xiii.  —  Sermons:  K.  Schenkt,  Sancti 
Ambrosii  de  excessu  fratris  liber  prior,  in  Ambrosiana  (see  no.  11).  In 
his   Spicilegium    Liberianum,    Florence,     1863,    pp.    3 — 4,    Fr.    Liver  ani 


442 


SECOND    PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 


edited  a  spurious  Tractatus  in  Phil.  iv.  4,  under  the  name  of  Ambrose. 
Selections  from  the  sermons  of  Ambrose  were  translated  into  German  by 
Th.  Köhler,  Leipzig,  1892,  in  G.  Leonhardi,  Die  Predigt  der  Kirche,  xx.  — 
Hymns:  The  metrical  writings  of  Ambrose  are  discussed  by  L.  Biraghi, 
Inni  sinceri  e  Carmi  di  S.  Ambrogio,  vescovo  di  Milano,  Milan,  1862. 
G.  M.  Dreves,  S.  J.,  Aurelius  Ambrosius,  der  Vater  des  Kirchengesanges. 
Eine  hymnologische  Studie  (Supplement  58  of  Stimmen  aus  Maria-Laach), 
Freiburg,  1893.  An  Italian  version  of  the  hymns  was  made  by  G.  Br  eta, 
Milan,  1841.  P.  Franchi  de' Cavalieri  denies  in  his  Sant'  Agnese  nella 
tradizione  e  nella  leggenda,  Rome,  1899  (supplement  of  the  Rom.  Quartal- 
schrift) the  Ambrosian  authorship  of  the  hymn  Agnes  beatae  virginis.  It 
is  defended  by  G.  M.  Dreves,  in  Zeitschrift  f.  Kath.  Theologie  (1901), 
xxv.  356 — 365.  A.  Steier,  Untersuchungen  über  die  Echtheit  der  Hymnen 
des  Ambrosius,  in  Jahrb.  f.  klass.  Philologie  1903,  xxviii.  For  a  study  on 
six  of  the  Ambrosian  hymns  and  the  Te  Deum  laudamus  cf.  J.  Kayser, 
Beiträge  zur  Geschichte  und  Erklärung  der  ältesten  Kirchenhymnen,  2.  ed., 
Paderborn,  1881,  pp.  127 — 248  and  435 — 458.  On  the  Te  Deum  see 
no.  12.  The  metrical  inscriptions  and  the  distichs  are  discussed  by  Biraghi, 
1.  c. ;  the  latter  are  the  subject  of  a  study  by  5".  Merkle,  in  Rom.  Quartal- 
schrift f.  christl.  Altertumskunde  u.  f.  Kirchengesch.  (1896),  x.  185—222. 
In  Analecta  sacra  et  classica,  Paris,  1888,  part  1,  pp.  121 — 124,  Pitra 
edited  certain  Ambrosiani  qui  dicuntur  versus  de  naturis  rerum.  M.  Magi- 
stretti,  Monumenta  veteris  liturgiae  Ambrosianae,  I:  Pontificate  in  usum 
ecclesiae  Mediolanensis  necnon  et  Ordines  Ambrosiani  ex  codicibus  saec. 
xi — xv.    II  et  III:  Manuale  Ambrosianum.  Milan,   1897  — 1905. 

11.  works  on  st.  Ambrose.  —  C.  Locatelli,  Vita  di  S.  Ambrogio,  Milan, 
1875.  Fr.  Böhringer,  Die  Kirche  Christi  und  ihre  Zeugen  oder  die  Kirchen- 
geschichte in  Biographien,  2.  ed.,  vol.  x:  Ambrosius,  Erzbischof  von  Mai- 
land, 2.  reprint,  Stuttgart,  1877.  Th.  Förster,  Ambrosius,  Bischof  von  Mai- 
land. Eine  Darstellung  seines  Lebens  und  Wirkens,  Halle,  1884.  Le  Due 
de  Broglie,  St.  Ambroise  (340—397),  Paris,  1899  (Les  Saints);  4.  ed., 
1901.  —  M.  Ihm,  Studia  Ambrosiana,  in  Jahrb.  f.  klass.  Philol.,  Suppl., 
Leipzig,  1890,  xvii.  1  — 124,  also  printed  separately;  cf.  Ihm,  Philon  und 
Ambrosius,  in  Neue  Jahrb.  für  Philol.  und  Pädag.  (1890),  exli.  282 — 288. 
—  Ambrosiana,  Scritti  varii  pubblicati  nel  xv.  centenario  della  morte  di 
S.  Ambrogio,  con  introduzione  di  A.  C.  Card.  Ferrari,  Milan,  1897.  jf.  E. 
Fruner,  Die  Theologie  des  hl.  Ambrosius  (Progr.),  Eichstätt,  1862.  W.  Balken- 
hol, Die  kirchenrechtlichen  Anschauungen  des  hl.  Ambrosius,  Bischofs  von 
Mailand,  und  seiner  Zeit,  in  Der  Katholik,  1888,  i.  113 — 140  284 — 296 
337 — 3Sl  484— 511;  reprinted  separately.  J.  B.  Kellner,  Der  hl.  Ambrosius, 
Bischof  von  Mailand,  als  Erklärer  des  Alten  Testamentes,  Ratisbon,  1893. 
H.  Dacier,  La  femme  d'apres  Saint  Ambroise,  Paris,  1900.  M.  Magistretti, 
II  sacramento  della  confessione  secondo  S.  Ambrogio,  in  Scuola  Cattolica, 
1903,  pp.  493 — 512.  A.  Zargent,  Saint  Ambroise,  in  Diet,  de  Theologie 
Catholique,  Paris,  1903,  i.  (col.  942  —  951);  F.  Lejay ,  Rit  Ambrosien,  ib. 
(col.  954 — 968) ;  F.  Niederhuber,  Die  Lehre  des  hl.  Ambrosius  vom  Reiche 
Gottes  auf  Erden  (in  Forschungen  z.  christl.  Litt.-  u.  Dogmengesch.,  iv.  3 — 4), 
Mainz,  1904;  F.  van  Ortroy,  Saint  Ambroise  et  l'empereur  Theodose,  in 
Analecta  Bollandiana,  1904,  pp.  417 — 426.  N.  Ermoni,  Saint  Ambroise, 
hymnographe  (col.  1347 — 1352);  H.  Zeclercq,  Compositions  epigraphiques 
de  Saint  Ambroise  (col.  1352 — 1353);  A.  Galard,  Chant  Ambrosien  (col. 
1353 — 1373);  F.  Lejay,  Rit  Ambrosien  (col.  1373 — 1442),  these  four  articles 
in:  Diet,  d' Archeologie  chretienne  et  de  Liturgie,  Paris,   1906,  i. 

12.  nicetas  of  remesiana.  —  Nicetas,  bishop  of  Romatiana  or  Remesiana 
in  the  heart  of  Dacia,    lived   towards   the  end  of  the  fourth  century,    and 


§    9°-      ST.    AMBROSE.  443 

must  not  be  confounded  with  the  bishop  of  Aquileia  of  the  same  name  in 
the  second  half  of  the  fifth  century.  According  to  Gennadius  (De  viris  ill., 
c.  22)  he  left  an  instruction  for  baptismal  candidates  written  in  simple  and 
pleasing  style :  Competentibus  ad  baptismum  instructionis  libellos  sex,  and  a 
work :  Ad  lapsam  virginem  libellum.  The  contents  of  the  books  of  bap- 
tismal instruction  were  as  follows :  Continet  primus  (libellus)  qualiter  se  de- 
beant  habere  competentes  . .  .  secundus  est  de  gentilitatis  erroribus  .  . .  tertius 
liber  de  fide  unicae  maiestatis,  quartus  adversus  genethliologiam  (astrology), 
quintus  de  symbolo,  sextus  de  agni  paschalis  victima.  This  work  does  not 
seem  to  be  preserved  in  its  entirety.  The  fifth  book  (De  symbolo)  is  certainly 
identical  with  the  Explanatio  symboli  habita  ad  competentes  (Migne,  PL., 
Hi.  865—874),  first  edited  by  Cardinal  Borgia  (Padua,  1799),  a  very  beauti- 
ful work  and  very  important  for  the  history  of  the  baptismal  creed.  It 
has  been  re-edited  by  Caspari  (Kirchenhistorische  Anecdota,  Christiania, 
1883,  i.  341 — 360),  and  by  Pitra  (Analecta  sacra,  Paris,  1883,  ni-  5^4 — 588). 
Other  remnants  of  this  instruction  were  edited  by  M.  Denis  (Vienna,  1802) 
and  by  Cardinal  Mai  (Rome,  1827  1833).  Denis  made  known  six  short 
fragments  [Migne,  PL.,  Hi.  873 — 876),  and  Mai  three  brief  treatises,  (ib.,  Hi. 
847 — 866),  entitled:  De  ratione  fidei,  De  Spiritus  Sancti  potentia,  De  diversis 
appellationibus  D.  N.  Jesu  Christo  convenientibus.  The  first  two  treatises 
are  certainly  parts  of  one  book,  and  probably  identical  with  De  fide  unicae 
maiestatis,  the  third  book  of  the  Instruction.  Textual  emendations  of  the  De 
diversis  appellationibus  are  found  in  G.  Mercati,  Note  di  letteratura  biblica 
e  cristiana  antica  (Studi  e  Testi,  v),  Rome,  1901,  pp.  137 — 140.  For  more 
details  on  various  other  fragments  and  especially  the  Explanatio  symboli 
cf.  E.  Hiimpel,  Nicetas,  Bischof  von  Remesiana  (Inaug.-Diss.),  Erlangen, 
1895.  F.  Kattenbusch  does  not  admit  that  these  fragments,  especially  the 
Explanatio  symboli,  belong  to  the  bishop  of  Remesiana.  They  were  written, 
he  thinks,  in  Gaul  or  in  Spain  in  the  early  part  of  the  fifth  century; 
cf.  Theol.  Literaturzeitung,  1896,  pp.  297 — 303.  Gennadius  vouches  for 
a  work  of  Nicetas  entitled  Ad  lapsam  virginem-,  in  the  past  it  was  often 
identified  with  the  De  lapsu  virginis  consecratae  among  the  works  of 
Ambrose  (see  no.  5).  Dom  Morin  discovered  lately  a  hitherto  unknown 
Epistola  ad  virginem  lapsam,  which  is  more  likely  to  be  the  work  attributed 
by  Gennadius  to  Nicetas  (Revue  Benedictine,  1897,  xiv.  193 — 202).  Morin 
undertook  also  to  show  that  the  data  in  Gennadius  concerning  the  literary 
labors  of  the  bishop  of  Remesiana  are  incomplete.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  is  scarcely  any  reason  to  doubt  that  Nicetas  of  Remesiana  is  identical 
with  Nicetas,  bishop  in  Dacia,  and  friend  of  St.  Paulinus  of  Nola  [Katten- 
busch, 1.  c.j  does  not  think  so).  Paulinus  often  makes  mention  of  him 
in  his  poems  and  letters  as  a  missionary  bishop  and  a  well-known  hymno- 
grapher;  cf.  Paulinus  of  Nola,  Poema  17:  ad  Nicetam  redeuntem  in  Daciam. 
A.  Souter,  Notes  on  the  De  lapsu  virginis  of  Niceta,  in  Journal  of  Theol. 
Studies  (1905),  vi.  433 — 434.  From  a  close  study  of  the  words  of  Paulinus 
Morin  has  been  able  to  render  it  most  probable  that  Nicetas  is  the  author 
of  the  Te  Deum  Laudamus  (see  no.  8  10),  as  well  as  of  two  hymnological 
treatises  De  vigiliis  servorum  Dei  and  De  psalmodiae  bono  [Migne,  PL., 
lxviii.  365 — 376).  On  the  history  of  the  Te  Deum  cf.  Morin,  in  Revue 
Bene'd.  (1894),  xi.  49 — 77  337 — 345;  A.  E.  Burn,  An  Introduction  to  the 
Creeds  and  to  the  Te  Deum,  its  structure  and  meaning,  its  musical  setting 
and  rendering,  together  with  a  revised  Latin  text,  notes  and  translations, 
London,  1902;  G.  Semeria,  Gli  Inni  della  Chiesa,  iii:  L'Inno  della  fide. 
JV.  Meyer,  Das  Turiner  Bruchstück  der  ältesten  irischen  Liturgie,  in  the 
Göttinger  Nachrichten,  philol.-hist.  Klasse,  1903,  pp.  208 — 214.  For  the 
two   hymnological   treatises    see  Morin,   in  Revue  Biblique  (1897),  vi.  282 


444 


SECOND    PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 


to  288,  and  in  Revue  Benedictine  (1897),  xiv.  385—397,  where  the  entire 
text  of  De  psalmodiae  bono  was  first  made  known. 

13.    CONTEMPORARY    EPISCOPAL    WRITERS.  —  Pope    SiriciuS    (384 398)    is 

known  to  us  through  seven  letters  (Migne,  PL.,  xiii.  1 131— 1 196),  the  first 
of  which  is  addressed  to  Himerius,  bishop  of  Tarragona  in  Spain  (ib.,  xiii. 
j  j ^ j — 1 147).  It  is  rather  long  and  is  also  the  oldest  known  of  the 
decretal  letters  of  popes;  cf.  Jafft,  Regesta  Pontif.  Rom.,  2.  ed.,  Leipzig, 
1885,  i.  40 — 42,  n.  255  —  272.  For  a  German  version  of  these  letters 
see  S.  Wenzlcwsky,  Die  Briefe  der  Päpste  (Bibl  der  Kirchenväter),  ii.  407 
to  488.  —  St.  Simplicianus,  the  friend  of  St.  Ambrose  and  his  successor 
in  the  see  of  Milan,  left  many  letters  (Gennad.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  36),  among 
them  several  to  St.  Augustine.  They  have  all  perished.  Among  the  letters 
of  St.  Augustine  there  is  a  very  flattering  letter  ad  Simplicianum,  written 
about  397  (Ep.  37:  Migne,  PL.,  xxxiii.  151  — 152).  He  also  wrote  a  work 
De  diversis  quaestionibus  ad  Simplicianum  libri  duo  (Ib.,  xl.,  101 — 148). 
—  Among  the  prominent  theologians  of  the  time  was  Chromatius,  bishop 
of  Aquileia  (ca.  387 — 407);  eighteen  of  whose  treatises  have  reached  us. 
They  are  homilies  on  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew  (Ib.,  xx.  323  —  368); 
among  them  the  treatise  on  the  eight  beatitudes  (Ib.,  323 — 328)  has  always 
been  highly  esteemed.  These  treatises  deal  with  three  chapters  (iii.  15 
to  17  and  v  vi)  of  the  said  Gospel,  and  appear  to  be  fragments  of  an 
entire  series  of  homilies  on  Matthew.  —  Vigilius,  bishop  of  Trent,  died  a 
martyr  about  405 ;  we  have  from  his  pen  a  work  De  martyrio  SS.  Sisinnii, 
Martyrii  et  Alexandri  (lb.  xiii.  549 — 558).  —  Victricius,  bishop  of  Rouen, 
died  about  407 ;  one  of  his  sermons  (De  laude  sanctorum ;  ib.  xx.  443 
to  458)  has  reached  us.  A  new  edition  was  brought  out  by  Sauvage  and 
Tougard,  Paris,  1895.  E.  Vacandard,  Saint  Victrice,  eveque  de  Rouen, 
Paris,  1903  (Les  Saints);  Id.,  in  Revue  des  questions  historiques  (1903), 
lxxiii.  379—441. 

§  91.    Prudentius  and  Paulinus. 

I .  PRUDENTIUS.  —  Aurelius  Prudentius  Clemens  is  easily  the  fore- 
most among  the  Latin  poets  of  Christian  antiquity.  In  the  Praefatio 
of  his  complete  poems  he  describes  for  us  summarily  his  life  and 
his  writings.  Prudentius  was  born  in  Spain  in  348,  very  probably  at 
Caesaraugusta  (Saragossa),  of  a  very  illustrious  Christian  family.  His 
youth  was  not  free,  he  tells  us,  from  «the  stains  and  mire  of  sin»: 
nequitiae  sordibus  ac  luto1.  He  chose  the  career  of  public  office, 
which  he  entered  as  procurator,  and  was  twice  named  rector  or 
president  of  a  province,  his  native  province,  it  is  conjectured.  Finally, 
through  the  favor  of  Theodosius,  he  was  given  a  military  office,  or 
rather  was  admitted  among  the  highest  imperial  officers  —  the  exact 
value  of  the  words  militiae  gradu  evectum  used  by  him  in  the  Prae- 
fatio, vv.  19 — 20,  is  not  certain.  His  «whitening  locks»  (nix  capitis, 
Praefatio,  v.  27)  moved  him  to  exchange  the  splendor  of  the  imperial 
court  for  a  peaceful  solitude  that  he  might  live  in  closer  communion 
with  God  and  save  his  soul.  Early  in  the  fifth  century  he  made  a 
journey  to  Rome.  His  death  must  have  taken  place  a  few  years 
after  his  return  to  Spain.  —   In  his  fifty-seventh  year  (404  or  405), 

1  Praef.,  v.   12. 


§    91-      PRUDENTIUS    AND    PAULINUS.  445 

Prudentius  published  a  collection  of  his  writings  that  has  come  down 
to  us  in  numerous  manuscripts.  Towards  the  end  of  the  Praefatio 
he  indicates  as  follows  the  contents  and  tendency  of  his  works: 
«The  sinful  soul  should  at  last  put  away  its  folly,  and  glorify  God 
in  accents  of  praise  if  not  by  meritorious  actions.  The  soul  should 
spend  its  days  in  the  singing  of  hymns,  and  let  no  night  go  by 
without  praising  the  Lord.  It  should  wage  war  against  heresies, 
preach  the  Catholic  faith,  overthrow  the  altars  of  the  demons,  break 
down  thy  idols,  O  Rome,  consecrate  pious  canticles  to  the  martyrs, 
and  sing  to  the  Apostles  discourses  filled  with  praise».  The  collec- 
tion is  divided  into  seven  books,  six  of  which  bear  Greek  titles.  The 
first  book  contains  a  number  of  daily  hymns  and  is  known  as 
Cathemerinon  (xadrjpeptvcov)  liber;  seven  of  its  twelve  hymn- like 
canticles  (in  nine  metres)  are  devoted  to  as  many  hours  of  the  day 
and  to  th£  regulation  of  daily  actions,  while  five  are  destined  for 
certain  days  of  the  week  or  year.  The  sixth  book  is  also  lyrical  in 
character  and  is  known  as  the  Peristephanon  (nept  arzfdvwv)  liber, 
because  its  fourteen  canticles  celebrate  in  divers  metres  the  praises 
of  Christian  martyrs  of  Spain  and  Italy  (Rome).  Both  works  follow 
closely  the  old  Spanish  liturgy,  and  it  is  on  them  that  the  fame 
of  the  poet  rests.  His  song,  enhanced  by  a  rich  and  imaginative 
diction,  springs  from  the  very  depths  of  his  soul  and  rises  on  the 
wings  of  firm  faith  and  tender  affection.  If  we  except  Claudian, 
he  is  as  consummate  an  artist  in  verse  as  any  of  his  pagan  con- 
temporaries. Prudentius  is  rightly  reproached  with  excess  and  crudeness 
of  detail  in  the  pictures  of  martyrdom  met  with  in  the  Peristephanon. 
He  wrote  three  other  metrical  works  of  a  didactico-polemical  cha- 
racter. Of  these,  the  Apotheosis  fdno^ecurnQj  defends  the  true  divinity 
of  Jesus  Christ  against  the  Patripassians,  the  Sabellians,  and  the  Jews. 
The  Hamartigenia  (apapTtyheta)  fixes  the  origin  of  evil  in  the  free 
will  of  the  creature  as  against  the  Gnostic,  and  particularly  the 
Marcionite  dualism.  The  Libri  duo  contra  Symmachum  are  devoted 
to  an  attack  on  idolatry  and  the  proceedings  of  the  pagan  party  in 
the  Roman  Senate  as  represented  by  Symmachus  (f  ca.  405).  This  last 
work  was  composed  at  Rome  in  402 — 404;  it  glows  with  enthusiasm 
and  by  modern  critics  has  frequently  been  declared  the  most  perfect 
work  of  the  poet.  Our  ignorance  of  the  circumstances  that  gave 
birth  to  the  Apotheosis  and  the  Hamartigenia  makes  it  difficult  to 
appreciate  them  properly.  Rosier  is  of  opinion  (1886)  that  both  of 
them  were  written  principally  against  Priscillianism  (§  89,  3);  Rosier 
sees  a  similar  polemical  purpose  in  the  Psychomachia  (ipuyopayia), 
a  lively  and  highly-colored  description  of  the  «struggle  for  the  soul» 
between  Christian  virtues  and  pagan  vices.  The  poem  is  written  in 
hexameters,  and  is  sometimes  described  as  a  didactic  work,  and  again 
as  an  epic,  because  of  the  fulness  in  its  manner  of  treating  its  sub- 


446  SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

ject.  It  is  the  first  Western  example  of  a  purely  allegorical  poem 
and  exercised  a  profound  influence  on  all  mediaeval  symbolism. 
Merkle  (1894)  does  not  admit  the  anti-Priscillianist  tone  of  these 
three  works.  Künstle  (1905)  maintains  that  all  were  written  against 
Priscillianism.  The  last  poem  of  the  collection  is  known  as  the 
Dittochceo7i ,  and  describes  forty-nine  biblical  scenes ,  twenty-four 
from  the  Old  and  twenty-five  from  the  New  Testament,  each  of 
them  in  4  hexameters.  It  is  quite  probable  that  all  these  Tetrasticha 
are  explications  or  even  inscriptions  that  graced  corresponding  pic- 
torial scenes  on  the  walls  of  the  Church  (at  Saragossa?)  The  term 
«Dittochseon»  is  still  obscure;  it  is  usually,  but  not  satisfactorily 
explained  as  «double  nourishment»,  from  dtzroQ  and  byq  i.  e.  from 
the  Old  and  the  New  Testament. 

2.  writings  on  prudentius.  —  The  oldest  and  best,  codex  of  Pru- 
dentius  is  Cod.  Paris.  8084,  saec.  vi.  (cf.  §  88,  7)  in  uncial  capitals.  The 
Italian  codices  are  described  by  A.  Dressel  in  his  edition  of  Prudentius 
(Leipzig,  i860),  pp.  xlvi — lxi.  E.  O.  Winstcdt ,  The  double  Recension  of 
the  Poems  of  Prudentius,  in  Classical  Review  (1903),  xvii.  203 — 207.  The 
illuminated  manuscripts  of  the  Psychomachia  are  described  by  R.  Stettiner, 
Die  illustrierten  Prudentius-Handschriften ,  Berlin,  1895.  —  The  various 
editions  of  Prudentius  are  enumerated  by  Dressel,  1.  c. ,  pp.  xxv — xlvi. 
Among  the  earlier  editions  that  of  the  Jesuit  F.  Arevalo  (Rome  1788  to 
1789,  2  vols.)  deserves  mention  because  of  its  copious  and  learned  com- 
mentary. It  is  reprinted  in  Migne,  PL.,  lix — Ix,  Paris,  1847.  —  Lanfranchi, 
Aurelii  Prudentii  Clementis  opera,  ad  Bodonianam  editionem  exegit, 
varus  lectionibus  et  adnotatiunculis  illustravit,  Turin,  1896  1902,  2  vols. 
The  Apotheosis  is  reprinted  also  in  Hurter ,  SS.  Patr.  opusc.  sei.  xxxiii. 
Excellent  complete  editions  of  Prudentius  are  due  to  Th.  Obbarius, 
Tübingen,  1845,  and  A.  Dressel,  Leipzig,  i860.  The  eleventh  hymn  of 
the  Peristephanon  (Passio  Hippolyti)  was  edited  separately  with  an  Italian 
version  by  Fr.  Felli,  Viterbo,  1881.  Dressel  indicates  (pp.  lxii— lxiv)  the 
various  vernacular  versions  of  our  poet.  A  good  German  version  is  found 
in  the  work  of  CI.  Brockhaus,  Leipzig,  1872.  Selected  poems  were  trans- 
lated into  English  by  Francis  St.  John  Thackeray,  Translations  from  Pru- 
dentius, London,  1890.  CI.  Brockhaus,  Aurelius  Prudentius  Clemens  in 
seiner  Bedeutung  für  die  Kirche  seiner  Zeit,  Leipzig,  1872.  Ad.  Ebert, 
Allgem.  Geschichte  der  Literatur  des  Mittelalters  im  Abendlande  (2.  ed., 
1889),  i.  251 — 293.  J.  Kayser ,  Beiträge  zur  Geschichte  und  Erklärung 
der  ältesten  Kirchenhymnen,  2.  ed.,  Paderborn,  1881 ,  pp.  249 — 336. 
A.  Rosier,  Der  katholische  Dichter  Aurelius  Prudentius  Clemens,  Freiburg, 

1886.  Aimi  Puech,  Prudence,  Paris,  1888.  G.  Boissier ,  La  fin  du  paga- 
nisme,  Paris,  1891,  ii.  123 — 177  (3.  ed.  [1898],  pp.  105— 151).  M.  Ma- 
nitius ,  Gesch.  der  christlich. -latein.  Poesie,  Stuttgart,  1891,  pp.  61—99. 
A.  Tonna  Barthet,  Aurelio  Prudencio  demente.  Estudio  biogräfico  critico, 
in  Ciudad  de  Dios  (1902),  lvii— lix.  —  Fr.  Krenkel ,  De  Aurelii  Prudentii 
Clementis  re  metrica  (Diss,  inaug.),  Rudolstadt,  1884.  H.  Breidt ,  De 
Aurelio  Prudentio   demente  Horatii   imitatore  (Diss,    inaug.),    Heidelberg, 

1887.  <A.  Melardi,  Quid  rationis  Prudentii  Psychomachia  cum  Cebetis 
tabula  habere  videatur,  Potenza,  1901.  E.  B.  Lease,  A  syntactic,  stylistic 
and  metrical  study  of  Prudentius,  Baltimore,  1895.  G.  Sixt ,  Die  lyri- 
schen Gedichte  des  Aurelius  Prudentius  Clemens  (Progr.),  Stuttgart,   1889. 


§    91«      PRUDENTIUS    AND    PAULINUS.  447 

V.  Both,  Des  christlichen  Dichters  Prudentius  Schrift  gegen  Symmachus 
(Progr.),  Rastatt,  1882.  S.  Merkle ,  Prudentius  und  Priscillian,  in  Theol. 
Quartalschr.  (1894),  Ixxvi.  77 — 125;  Id. ,  Neue  Prudentius-Studien ,  ib. 
(1896),  lxxviii.  251 — 275;  Id.,  Prudentius'  Dittochaeum,  in  Festschrift  zum 
elfhundertjährigen  Jubiläum  des  deutschen  Campo  Santo  in  Rom,  Frei- 
burg, 1897,  pp.  S3 — 45-  ?•  P'  Kirsch,  Le  «Dittochaeum»  de  Prudence 
et  les  monuments  de  l'antiquite  chretienne,  in  Atti  del  II  congresso  di 
archeol.  crist.,  Rome,  1902,  pp.  127 — 131.  A.  Melardi,  La  Psychomachia 
di  Prudenzio,  poema  eroico-allegorico  del  v.  secolo,  Pistoia,  1900.  P.  Cha- 
vanne,  Le  patriotisme  de  Prudence,  in  Revue  d'hist.  et  de  littdr.  religieuses 
(1899),  ly-  332 — 352  385 — 4*3-  —  The  remaining  «literature»  on  Prudentius 
is  listed  and  criticised  by  C.  Weyman,  in  Jahresbericht  über  die  Fortschritte 
der  klassischen  Altertumswissenschaft  (1895),  lxxxiv.  297  —  300;  (1897),  xciii. 
205 — 208;  (1900),  cv.  84  f.  F.  Maigret ,  Le  poete  chretien  Prudence,  in 
Science  Catholique  (1903),  xvii.  219 — 227  303 — 313.  K.  Künstle  shows 
that  Prudentius  wrote  against  Priscillian,  in  Antipriscilliana,  Freiburg,   1905. 

3.  PAULINUS  OF  NOLA.  —  Contemporary  with  Prudentius,  but 
quite  different  in  character,  was  another  poet,  Pontius  Meropius  Anicius 
Paulinus,  born  in  353  at  Burdigala  (Bordeaux)  of  a  wealthy  senatorial 
family.  He  was  a  disciple  of  the  rhetorician  Ausonius  (§  88,  5),  and 
through  life  remained  bound  to  him  by  ties  of  reverent  love  and 
friendship.  Paulinus  owed  it  to  the  powerful  influence  of  his  friend 
that  after  the  death  of  Valens  (Aug.  9.,  378),  though  scarcely  twenty- 
five,  he  was  made  consul  subrogatus  for  the  remainder  of  that  year. 
He  seems  to  have  soon  retired  from  public  life  to  devote  himself 
to  a  literary  dilettantism  more  pleasing  to  his  tastes.  However,  his 
soul  found  true  peace  only  when  he  listened  to  the  voice  of  divine 
grace  and  stripped  himself  of  all  his  earthly  possessions.  It  was  only 
gradually  that  he  formed  this  resolution;  grave  trials  had  nourished 
and  confirmed  it;  in  the  meantime  he  had  to  overcome  the  prayers 
and  reproaches  of  his  master.  He  had  long  deferred  baptism,  but 
in  389  he  received  it  from  the  hands  of  Delphinus,  bishop  of  Bor- 
deaux, after  which  he  lived  some  years  on  his  estates  in  Spain.  In 
393,  after  much  resistance,  he  was  ordained  priest  by  Lampius, 
bishop  of  Barcelona,  and  the  following  year  (394)  retired  to  Nola 
in  Campania.  It  was  the  resting-place  of  the  holy  martyr  Felix, 
whom  in  his  early  youth  Paulinus  had  chosen  as  his  protector,  and 
to  whom  he  believed  himself  indebted  for  his  escape  from  an  accu- 
sation of  fratricide.  Hither  he  came  with  his  pious  wife  Therasia  to 
lead  a  life  of  prayer,  mortification,  and  voluntary  poverty.  When 
the  see  of  Nola  fell  vacant  in  409,  he  was  chosen  to  be  its  bishop, 
and  thenceforth,  to  his  death  in  43 1 ,  gave  an  admirable  example  of 
self-sacrifice  and  disinterested  devotion  to  works  of  Christian  charity. 
—  Paulinus  has  not  the  fire  and  strength  of  Prudentius;  his  poetry 
betrays  a  milder  and  gentler  nature.  He  lacks  the  creative  force  of 
the  Spaniard,  his  bold  flights  of  imagination,  the  splendor  of  his 
diction.  The  style  of  Paulinus  is  more  simple  and  calm,  also  more  orna- 


448  SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

mental  and  pleasing,  and  manifests  at  all  times  a  cultivated  sense 
of  beauty.  From  the  earlier  period  of  his  life  we  possess  but  a  few 
insignificant  poems.  A  special  interest  attaches  to  the  correspondence 
of  Paulinus  and  Ausonius,  especially  the  letters  that  belong  to  the 
period  of  the  former's  conversion  (389—393).  In  these  letters  both 
authors  reached  the  acme  of  their  poetical  inspiration.  Ausonius 
strives  to  shake  the  resolution  of  his  disciple  to  enter  upon  a  new 
life,  while  the  latter,  in  spite  of  the  inevitable  discrepancy  between 
sound  faith  and  unreflecting  frivolity,  manifests  a  dignified  attachment 
to  his  old  master  and  friend.  Among  the  poems  of  the  latter  part 
of  the  life  of  Paulinus  the  most  important,  both  in  length  and  contents, 
are  the  panegyrical  effusions  in  honor  of  St.  Felix.  For  at  least 
fourteen  consecutive  years,  beginning  with  394,  Paulinus  honored 
each  feast-day  of  his  Saint  (January  14.)  with  such  a  composition  in 
hexameters.  We  have  still  thirteen  of  these  Carmina  natalitia  in  which 
Paulinus  celebrates  the  day  of  the  Saint's  death,  considered  as  the 
day  of  his  birth  to  eternal  life ;  a  fourteenth  carmen  has  reached  us 
,in  fragmentary  condition.  Of  his  three  paraphrases  of  Psalms  (Ps.  i 
ii  cxxxvi,  in  the  Vulgate)  the  first  is  in  iambic  trimeters,  the  second 
and  third  in  hexameters;  in  them  he  created  a  new  form  of  Christian 
poetry,  destined  to  be  thenceforth  much  cultivated  both  in  mediaeval 
and  modern  times.  The  Epithalamium  Juliani  et  Jae  is  an  interesting 
Christian  nuptial  poem  in  120  distichs,  and  contains  much  historical 
material  of  value  for  the  manners  and  habits  of  his  time.  The  letters 
of  Paulinus  are  less  pleasing  than  his  poems ;  their  style  is  somewhat 
labored  and  pedantic,  and  they  are  overrich  in  biblical  quotations 
and  allusions.  About  50  of  them  have  reached  us;  thirteen  of  them 
are  addressed  to  his  oldest  and  dearest  friend  Sulpicius  Severus; 
six  to  Amandus,  a  priest  of  Bordeaux,  to  whom  he  tells  us  he  was 
particularly  indebted  for  the  grace  of  conversion;  five  to  Delphinus, 
bishop  of  the  same  city;  four  to  Augustine,  and  one  each  to  most 
of  his  other  correspondents.  Several  prose-works  of  Paulinus  have 
perished,  notably  a  panegyric  on  Theodosius:  Super  victoria  tyran- 
norum,  eo  maxime  quod  fide  et  oratione  plus  quam  armis  vicerit, 
also  a:  Liber  de  poenitentia  et  de  laude  generali  omnium  martyrum1. 

4.  works  on  paulinus.  —  Complete  editions  of  his  works  were  publish- 
ed by  the  Jesuits  Fronton  du  Due  and  Heribert  Rosweyde ,  Antwerp, 
1622;  J.  B.  Le  Brun  des  Marettes,  Paris,  1685,  2  vols.-,  L.  A.  Muratori, 
Verona,  1736  (in  Migne,  PL.,  Ixi),  and  lately  by  W.  v.  Hartel ,  Vienna, 
1894,  2  vols.  (Corpus  script,  eccl.  lat.,  xxix— xxx);  cf.  Hartel,  Patristische 
Studien,  Vienna,  1895,  v  yl-  ~  Muratori  added  to  the  former  editions 
four  unknown  works,  three  of  them  being  Carmina  natalitia  in  S.  Felicem 
and  one  a  poem  of  two  hundred  and  fifty-four  hexameters  against  the 
follies  of  idolatry,  addressed  to  a  certain  Antonius.  In  Gallandi ,  Bibl. 
vet.  Patr.,  iii.  653—661  (cf.  xlviii — xlix)  this  Carmen  ad  Antonium  follows 

1  Gennad.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  48. 


§    9L      PRUDENTIUS    AND    PAULINUS.  449 

the  Instructiones  of  Commodian 3  under  the  title:  Antonii  carmen  ad- 
versus  gentes.  Gallandi  took  for  granted  that  the  first  line;  Discussi, 
fateor,  sectas,  Antonius,  omnes,  was  equivalent  to  a  claim  for  authorship 
by  Antonius;  Muratori  showed  quite  clearly  that  it  is  the  vocative  and 
not  the  nominative  which  occurs  here,  also  that  St.  Paulinus  is  the  real 
author  of  these  verses,  which  are  reprinted  in  Migne,  PL.,  v.  261  —  282, 
under  the  title  and  after  the  order  of  Gallandi ,  as  an  appendix  to  the 
Instructiones  of  Commodian  and  as  Antonii  Carmen  adversus  gentes.  The 
work  is  especially  important  for  classical  mythology  and  archaeology,  and 
has  been  twice  edited  separately,  by  Fr.  Oehler,  in  Gersdorf,  Bibl.  Patr.  eccl. 
lat.  sei.,  Leipzig,  1849,  XJ&  I21 — J32>  and  by  C.  Bursian,  in  Sitzungs- 
berichte der  philos.-philol.  und  histor.  Klasse  der  kgl.  bayer.  Akad.  der 
Wissensch.,  Munich,  1880,  fasc.  i,  pp.  1 — 23.  Both  of  these  editors  accept 
the  authorship  of  Paulinus.  —  A  polymetric  poem  of  130  verses,  inter- 
pretative of  some  paintings,  and  entitled  Obitus  Baebiani,  was  published  as 
early  as  the  sixteenth  century,  but  has  only  lately  been  shown  by  W.  Brandes 
to  be  a  work  of  Paulinus  of  Nola ;  cf.  the  excellent  new  edition  of  Brandes, 
in  Wiener-Studien  (1890),  xii.  280  —  297.  There  ought  no  longer  to  be 
any  doubt  of  the  authorship  of  Paulinus;  cf.  Manitius,  1.  c,  pp.  298 — 300. 
O.  Bardenhewer ,  in  Katholik  (1877),  i.  493 — 510,  and  C.  Weyman ,  in 
Histor.  Jahrb.  (1895),  xvi.  92 — 99  (cf.  ib.,  423  f.),  made  known  a  new 
letter  of  St.  Paulinus;  it  is  really  a  continuation  of  the  one  numbered  25 
in  his  correspondence.  —  For  Paulinus  in  general  cf.  Ad.  Buse ,  Paulin, 
Bischof  von  Nola,  und  seine  Zeit  (350 — 450),  Ratisbon,  1856,  2  vols. 
F.  Lagrange,  Histoire  de  St.  Paulin  de  Nole,  Paris,  1877,  2.  ed.,  1882, 
2  vols.  M.  Lafon,  Paulin  de  Nole,  pp.  353 — 431.  Essai  sur  sa  vie  et 
sa  pensee  (These),  Montauban,  1885.  G.  Boissier,  La  fin  du  paganisme, 
ii.  57 — 121  (3.  ed.,  pp.  49 — 103).  Manitius,  1.  c,  pp.  261 — 297.  A.  Huemer, 
De  Pontii  Meropii  Paulini  Nolani  re  metrica,  Vienna,  1903.  —  For  the  cor- 
respondence of  the  poet  see  A.  Puech,  De  Paulini  Nolani  Ausoniique  epi- 
stularum  commercio  et  communibus  studiis  (These),  Paris,  1887.  A.  Bau- 
drillart ,  Saint  Paulin,  eveque  de  Nole,  1904.  M.  Phillip,  Zum  Sprach- 
gebrauch des  Paulinus  von  Nola  (Diss.),  I.  Teil,  Munich,  1904.  —  Uranius, 
a  disciple  of  Paulinus,  has  left  us  a  letter  entitled  De  obitu  Paulini  ad 
Pacatum  [Migne,  PL.,  liii.  859 — 866);  the  recipient  Pacatus  is  probably 
identical  with  the  Latin  rhetorician  Drepanius  Pacatus  of  Aquitania  ( Teuffel- 
Schwabe,  Gesch.  der  röm.  Litt.,  5.  ed.,  pp.  1085  ff.);  in  any  case  he  in- 
tended to  write  a  metrical  life  of  Paulinus  (vitam  eius  versibus  illustrare: 
Ep.  Uranii,  c.   1). 

5.  other  poets.  —  Toward  the  end  of  the  fourth  century  the  Gallic 
rhetorician,  Severus  Sanctus  Endelechius,  a  friend  of  St.  Paulinus  of  Nola 
(Ep.  xxviii,  6),  wrote  in  thirty-three  asclepiadic  strophes  a  graceful  eclogue 
De  mortibus  bourn  [Migne,  PL.,  xix.  797 — 800),  under  the  title  De  virtute 
signi  crucis  Domini.  The  poet  imagines  that  a  cattle-pest  carries  off  in 
two  days  the  entire  herd  of  Bucolus ;  Tityrus  had  made  the  sign  of  the 
cross  on  the  forehead  of  each  of  his  beasts,  and  thus  saved  them  all. 
Bucolus  and  his  friend  Aegon  are  moved  by  this  marvel  to  embrace 
Christianity.  The  latest  edition  is  that  of  Biicheler  and  Riese,  in  Antho- 
logia  Latina,  Leipzig,  1869 — 1897,  i  2,  314 — 318.  —  The  Greek  title  of 
an  hexameter  poem  Alethia  (dXrjileta),  in  three  books,  based  on  the 
Genesis-account  of  creation  and  reaching  to  the  destruction  of  Sodom  and 
Gomorrha  (Gen.  xix.  28),  reminds  us  of  Prudentius.  It  amplifies  the  biblical 
narrative  extensively,  and  in  so  doing  gives  evidence  of  literary  ability 
and  good  taste.  It  has  reached  us  in  only  one  manuscript,  Cod.  lat. 
Par.   7558   saec.   ix. ,    in   which   the   author   is   frequently   called   Claudius 

Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  29 


450 


SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 


Marius  Victor  (Victorius)  orator  Massiliensis ;  he  is  certainly  the  same  as 
Victorius  (Victorinus)  rhetor  Massiliensis  mentioned  by  Gennadius  (De 
viris  ill.,  c  60)  who  died  after  425.  The  first  editor  J.  Gagnejus  (Lyons, 
1536;  Paris,  1545)  entitled  the  work  Commentarii  in  Genesin,  and  most 
capriciously  altered  the  text  by  additions,  suppressions  and  the  like;  all 
other  reprints  are  based  on  this  edition,  even  Migne,  PL.,  lxi.  937—970. 
The  latest  and  best  edition  is  that  of  K.  Schenkl,  in  Poetae  christiani  minores, 
Vienna,  1888  (Corpus  script,  eccl.  lat.  xvi),  i.  335— 498  (the  text  of  Gagnejus 
is  found  at  pp.  437  —  482).  In  the  same  codex  the  Alethia  poem  is  followed 
by  a  S.  Paulini  epigramma,  a  satirical  dialogue  in  one  hundred  and  ten 
hexameters  descriptive  of  contemporary  manners.  It  is  probable  that  the 
author  may  be  Paulinus  of  Biterrae  (Beziers)  who  flourished  about  400 
to  419  (cf.  Hydatii  Chronicon  ad  a.  419).  Gagnejus  gave  the  work  an 
utterly  unsuitable  title :  Claudii  Marii  Victoris  oratoris  Massiliensis  de  per- 
versis  suae  aetatis  moribus  liber  quartus  ad  Salmonem  {Migne,  PL.,  lxi.  969 
to  972).  The  latest  and  best  edition  is  that  of  K.  Schenkl ,  1.  c,  pp.  499 
to  510.  —  Claudius  Marius  Victor  is  the  subject  of  several  works:  A.  Bour- 
goin,  De  Claudio  Mario  Victore,  rhetore  christiano  quinti  saeculi  (These), 
Paris,  1883.  St.  Gamber,  Un  rheteur  chretien  au  Ve  siecle,  Claudius  Marius 
Victor,  Marseilles,  1884;  Id.,  Le  livre  de  la  Genese  dans  la  poesie  latine 
au  Ve  siecle,  Paris,  1899.  H.  Maurer,  De  exemplis  quae  Claudius  Marius 
Victor  in  Alethia  secutus  sit  (Diss,  inaug.),  Marburg,  1896.  —  About  430 
the  priest  Caelius  (?)  Sedulius,  concerning  whom  we  possess  very  insufficient 
data,  composed  an  hexameter  poem  entitled  Paschale  carmen  {Migne,  PL., 
xix.  533 — 754)  dealing  with  the  wonderful  deeds  of  our  Lord.  In  the  dedi- 
cation to  a  certain  priest  Macedonius  he  explains  this  title  in  conjunction 
with  the  words  of  the  New  Testament:  quia  pascha  nostrum  immolatus 
est  Christus  (1  Cor.  v.  7).  It  is  divided  into  five  books,  the  first  of  which 
is  introductory  and  explains  certain  miracles  of  the  Old  Testament ;  in  the 
other  four  the  Gospel-narrative,  in  particular  the  text  of  St.  Matthew, 
furnishes  the  material  for  a  description  of  the  miracles  of  Christ  from  His 
Incarnation  to  His  Ascension.  Unlike  his  predecessor  Juvencus  (§  88,  1), 
Sedulius  relates  only  the  miraculous  elements  of  the  life  of  Christ,  which 
again  he  prefers  to  illustrate  by  his  comments  rather  than  to  narrate.  The 
work  of  Sedulius  was  highly  appreciated  and  was  very  popular  throughout 
the  Middle  Ages  by  reason  of  its  pronounced  ecclesiastical  tone,  its 
peculiar  exegesis,  and  the  simplicity  and  vigor  of  its  diction.  At  the  re- 
quest of  the  same  Macedonius,  another  work,  Paschale  opus  (ib.,  xix.  545 
to  574),  was  composed  by  Sedulius;  it  is  a  kind  of  amplification  in  rhe- 
torical prose  of  the  foregoing  work ;  the  strained  and  affected  style  of  this 
prose  work  contrasts  strangely  with  that  of  the  metrical  composition.  Se- 
dulius also  wrote  two  hymns  to  our  Lord  (ib.,  xix.  753—770);  portions 
of  the  second  hymn  have  been  adopted  into  the  liturgy  of  the  Church  : 
the  Christmas  hymn:  A  solis  ortus  cardine,  and  the  Epiphany  hymn:  Cru- 
delis  Herodes  Deum;  cf.  J.  Kayser ,  Beiträge  zur  Gesch.  und  Erklärung 
der  ältesten  Kirchenhymnen,  2.  ed.,  Paderborn,  1881,  pp.  337—385.  For 
the  spurious  cento  De  Verbi  incarnatione  (ib.,  xix.  773—780)  cf.  §  88,  4. 
The  best  and  latest  complete  edition  of  Sedulius  is  that  of  J.  Huemer, 
Vienna,  1885  (Corpus  script,  eccles.  lat.  x).  In  the  edition  of  J.  Looshorn 
(Munich,  1879)  the  Paschale  opus  is  lacking.  On  the  Paschale  carmen 
see  also  Hurter ,  SS.  Patr.  opusc.  sei.  xxxiii;  cf.  J.  Huemer,  De  Sedulii 
poetae  vita  et  scriptis  commentatio,  Vienna,  1878.  C.  L.  Leimbach,  Patri- 
stische  Studien,  i:  Caelius  Sedulius  und  sein  Carmen  paschale  (Progr.), 
Goslar,  1879.  Cf.  on  Sedulius  also  A.  Beilesheim,  Die  Geschichte  der  kath. 
Kirche  in  Irland,  Mainz,   1890,  i.  285—291.    Cf.  also  Manitius,  1.  c,  p.  303. 


§    92.      ST.    SULPICIUS    SEVERUS    AND    TYRANNIUS    RUFINUS.  45  I 

J.  Candely  De  clausulis  a  Sedulio  in  eis  libris  qui  inscribuntur  Paschal  e  opus 
adhibitis,  Toulouse,  1904.  —  About  430,  apparently,  Orientius  of  Gaul  (bishop 
of  Auch?)  wrote  a  Commonitorium  (ib.,  lxi.  977 — 1000)  or  exhortatory  poem 
in  favor  of  a  Christian  life ;  its  two  books  are  composed  in  an  unaffected 
but  earnest  style.  Some  minor  poems  are  current  under  his  name  (ib., 
lxi.  1000 — 1006);  most  of  them  are  of  doubtful  authenticity.  The  newest 
and  best  edition  of  Orientius  is  that  of  R.  Ellis,  in  Poetae  christian! 
minores,  Vienna,  1888,  i.  191 — 261.  Cf.  Manitius,  1.  c,  pp.  192—201. 
L.  Havet,  Orientiana,  in  Revue  de  Philologie  (1902),  xxvi.  146 — 157. 
R.  Ellis,  The  Commonitorium  of  Orientius,  Oxford,  1903,  p.  120. 
L.  Bellanger,  Le  poeme  d' Orientius.  Edition  critique.  Etude  philologique 
et  litteraire,  Paris,  1903;  Id.,  Recherches  sur  S.  Orens,  eveque  d'Auch 
(1903),  i.  6.  —  The  so-called  Amoenus  is  not  a  poet  at  all,  not  even  a 
person;  all  the  poems  attributed  to  him  (ib.,  lxi.  1075— 1082)  belong  to 
others.     Cf.   Teuffel-Schtvabe,    Gesch.  der  römischen  Lit.,    5.  ed.,   p.  12 18. 

§  92.    St.  Sulpicius  Severus  and  Tyrannius  Rufinus. 

I .  SULPICIUS  SEVERUS.  —  This  youthful  friend  of  Paulinus  of  Nola 
was  one  of  the  most  polished  and  refined  prose- writers  of  his  time. 
He  was  born  about  363,  of  a  noble  Aquitanian  family1.  In  one  of 
his  letters  (v.  5 — 6)  Paulinus  tells  us  that  Sulpicius  had  been  an 
eloquent  lawyer  and  had  married  into  a  rich  consular  family.  His 
wife  died  quite  unexpectedly,  and  her  loss  so  affected  him  that  he 
suddenly  (repentino  impetu)  abandoned  the  law-courts  and  his  wealth 
for  monastic  solitude  and  poverty.  Sulpicius  himself  tells  us2  that 
it  was  St.  Martin  of  Tours,  the  great  apostle  of  Western  monasticism, 
who  exhorted  him  to  withdraw  from  the  «adulation  and  the  vices» 
of  the  world  and  to  follow  Paulinus  in  his  total  change  of  sentiments 
and  manner  of  life.  The  statement  of  Gennadius 3  that  Severus  was  a 
priest,  has  been  doubted  but  without  good  reason ;  there  is  also  some 
historical  evidence  for  the  other  story  that  in  his  old  age  our  writer 
was  caught  in  the  toils  of  Pelagianism,  but  recognized  eventually 
that  he  had  been  the  victim  of  an  over-loquacious  tongue,  whereupon 
he  condemned  himself  to  the  penance  of  a  life-long  silence.  His 
death  is  said  to  have  occurred  about  420 — 425.  The  most  useful 
of  his  writings  is  a  Chronicle :  Chronicorum  libri  duo,  finished  not 
earlier  than  403,  in  which  he  narrates  summarily  the  history  of  the 
Old  Testament,  but  omits  the  New  Testament,  «in  order  that  the 
dignity  of  its  subject-matter  may  not  suffer  from  scantiness  of  nar- 
ration» (ii.  27,  3).  He  adds  a  compendium  of  ecclesiastical  history 
as  far  as  the  year  400;  its  chief  interest  lies  in  the  description  of 
the  Priscillianist  controversies  (ii.  46—51).  In  this  work  Sulpicius 
furnished  the  cultivated  Christian  public  with  a  book  of  historical 
readings ;  at  the  same  time  he  gave  proof  of  an  historico-critical  sense 
and  imitated  with  great  success  the  historical  style  of  such  writers  as 


1   Gennad.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.    19.  2  Vita  S.  Martini,  c.   25. 

3  De  viris  ill.,  c.    19. 


29* 


JC2  SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

Sallust  and  Tacitus.  Nevertheless,  the  work  did  not  commend  itself 
to  the  taste  of  succeeding  generations;  it  is  seldom  quoted  in  the 
Christian  literature  of  a  later  period,  and  has  reached  us  in  a  single 
manuscript.  On  the  other  hand,  several  works  written  in  honor  of 
St.  Martin  of  Tours  met  with  a  more  general  welcome.  His  Vita 
S.  Martini  was  written  during  the  life-time  of  the  Saint  though  not 
published  till  after  his  death  (f  397).  Three  letters:  Ad  Eusebium, 
Ad  Aurelium  diaconum,  Ad  Bassulam  parentem  (his  mother  in  law), 
may  be  looked  on  as  appendixes  to  the  Life  of  Martin ;  in  the  latter 
two  his  death  is  described.  Two  Dialogi,  the  first  of  which  is  usually 
but  wrongly  separated  into  two,  are  devoted  to  a  comparison  of  the 
miracles  of  St.  Martin  with  those  of  the  Egyptian  monks  and  complete 
(Dial,  ia,  23)  the  account  given  in  the  Vita.  These  writings  were 
originally  intended  for  popular  circulation,  and  obtained  at  once  a 
wide  circulation;  all  later  descriptions  of  the  life  and  miracles  of 
Martin  draw  largely  on  them  (§  112,  3;  117,  3);  as  literary  com- 
positions they  are  far  inferior  to  the  Chronica.  Through  fanatical 
admiration  for  his  hero  our  author  becomes  an  over-credulous 
miracle-hunter;  moreover,  in  these  writings  the  author  has  been 
negligent  in  his  style i.  Seven  letters  that  bear  his  name  are  generally 
rejected  because  of  the  difference  of  style  which  they  exhibit;  it  would 
be  more  prudent  to  admit  as  genuine  the  first  two  of  these  letters, 
which  are  also  the  longest:  Ad  Claudiam  sororem  suam,  De  ultimo 
iudicio  and  De  virginitate.  Gennadius  tells  us2  that  he  wrote  many 
edifying  letters  to  his  sister.  The  letters  to  Paulinus  of  Nola  referred 
to  by  Gennadius  have  perished. 

2.  works  on  sulpicius  severus.  julius  HiLARiANUS.  —  Complete 
editions  of  the  works  of  Sulpicius  Severus  were  brought  out  by  Victor 
Giselinus,  Antwerp,  1574;  Girolamo  de  Prato,  Verona,  1741 — 1754,  2  vols.; 
C.  Halm,  Vienna,  1866  (Corpus  script,  eccles.  lat.  i).  —  J.  Fürtner,  Text- 
kritische  Bemerkungen  zu  Sulpicius  Severus  (Progr.) ,  Landshut,  1885. 
Migne  reprints  (PL.,  xx.  95  —  248)  the  de  Prato  edition,  with  the  addition  of 
the  seven  letters,  but  without  the  praefationes,  dissertationes  and  observa- 
tions of  de  Prato.  A  separate  edition  of  the  Chronicle  was  issued  by  Fr. 
Dübner,  Paris,  1851.  An  acute  and  learned  criticism  of  the  Chronicle 
was  written  by  J.  Bernays,  Über  die  Chronik  des  Sulpicius  Severus,  Berlin, 
1 86 1,  and  reprinted  in  Gesammelte  Abhandlungen  von  J.  Bernays,  heraus- 
gegeben von  H.  Usener,  Berlin,  1885,  &  81—200.  Cf.  H.  Geher,  Sextus 
Julius  Africanus,  Leipzig,  1885,  ii  1,  107— 121.  The  Vita  S.  Martini  cum 
epistulis  et  dialogis  was  edited  by  Fr.  Dübner,  Paris,  1859  and  1890;  the 
same  works  are  found  in  Hurter,  SS.  Patrum  opuscula  selecta,  xlviii.  They 
were  translated  into  German  by  A.  Bieringer,  Kempten,  1872  (Bibl.  der 
Kirchenväter).  A  French  translation  of  the  Vita  S.  Martini  was  made  by 
R.  Viot,  2.  ed.,  Tours,  1893.  Cf.  A.  Lavertujon,  Sulpice  Severe  edite,  tra- 
duit  et  commente,  Paris,  1896  1899,  2  vols,  (the  Chronicle).  For  a  biblio- 
graphy of  St.  Martin  see  J.  H.  Reinkens,  Martin  von  Tours,  der  wunder- 
tätige Mönch   und   Bischof,    Breslau,   1866,    pp.  258  —  274.     The  Latin    of 

1  Cf.  the  preface  of  the  Vita.  2  De  viris  ill.,  c.   19. 


§    92.      ST.    SULPICIUS    SEVERUS    AND    TYRANNIUS   RUFINUS.  453 

Severus  is  discussed  by  H.  Goelzer ,  Grammaticae  in  Sulpicium  Severum 
observationes  potissimum  ad  vulgarem  latinum  sermonem  pertinentes  (These), 
Paris,  1883.  y.  Schell,  De  Sulpicio  Severo  Sallustianae,  Livianae,  Taciteae 
elocutionis  imitatore  (Diss,  inaug.),  Münster,  1892.  For  a  general  chronicle 
to  511  (Epitoma  chronicorum  Severi  cognomento  Sulpicii)  lacking  in  the 
editions  of  Sulpicius,  but  falsely  attributed  to  him,  cf.  Teuffel-Schwabe , 
Gesch.  der  röm.  Lit.,  5.  ed.,  pp.  ii38f.  The  Carmina  Sulpicio  Severo 
tributa  in  Migne ,  PL.,  lxxiv.  671 — 674,  are  also  spurious.  —  Quintus 
Julius  Hilarianus,  a  bishop  of  proconsular  Africa,  composed  toward  the 
end  of  the  fourth  century  a  little  work  entitled  De  mundi  duratione  (ib., 
xiii.  1097 — 1 1 06)  and  a  treatise  De  die  paschae  et  mensis  (ib.,  xiii.  1105 
to  1114).  Writers  on  historical  chronology  praise  the  boldness  and  in- 
dependent research  of  the  first  work;  cf.  H.  Gelzer,  Sextus  Julius  Afri- 
canus  ii  1,  121  — 129.  A  new  edition  of  De  mundi  duratione  or  De  cursu 
temporum  was  published  by  C.  Frick ,    Chronica   minora,    Leipzig,    1892, 

3.  TYRANNIUS  RUFINUS.  —  This  writer  shares  with  Sulpicius 
Severus  a  reputation  for  classical  culture,  without  equalling  the  original- 
ity of  the  latter  or  the  perfection  of  his  style.  He  was  born  about 
345  near  Aquileia,  and  there  in  a  monastery  he  received  his  early 
theological  training,  and  it  was  also  at  Aquileia  that  he  met  with 
St.  Jerome  and  learned  to  appreciate  that  learned  man.  The  monastic 
life  exercised  a  strong  fascination  over  him,  and  in  371  he  accompanied 
the  Roman  lady  Melania  on  a  journey  to  Egypt,  the  fatherland  of 
monasticism.  He  dwelt  for  some  time  with  the  hermits  oftheNitrian 
desert,  and  afterwards  at  Alexandria  frequented  the  lectures  of  the 
blind  Didymus  who  filled  him  with  enthusiasm  for  the  Greek  Fathers, 
particularly  for  Origen.  In  377  he  followed  his  friend  Melania  to 
Jerusalem  and  took  up  his  residence  in  a  hermit's  cell  on  Mount 
Olivet.  About  390  he  was  ordained  priest  by  John,  bishop  of 
Jerusalem.  In  the  meantime  Jerome  had  taken  up  his  residence  at 
Jerusalem.  The  friendly  relations  existing  between  them  were  soon 
interrupted  by  the  Origenist  controversies  (§  71,  1),  Rufinus  being 
unwilling  to  take  sides  against  Origen.  This  was  soon  followed, 
however,  by  a  reconciliation,  and  in  398  Rufinus  returned  to  Italy. 
He  translated  at  Rome  the  first  book  of  the  Apology  for  Origen 
written  by  Pamphilus  (§  45,  1),  likewise  the  work  of  Origen  rrspl 
äpyjtiv  (§  39,  8).  In  his  preface  to  the  latter  work  he  deemed  it 
right  to  mention  among  the  disciples  and  admirers  of  the  great 
Alexandrine  the  name  of  Jerome  as  of  one  well-known  to  the  entire 
West  and  universally  respected.  This  act  led  to  an  bitter  literary 
feud  between  the  former  friends.  Jerome  insisted  that  he  had  held 
in  honor  the  exegetical  works  of  Origen,  but  by  no  means  his 
dogmatic  writings.  He  brought  out  at  once  a  new  translation  of 
the  Tispl  äpyßv,  in  which  he  set  aside  the  free  paraphrase  of  Rufinus 
for  an  exact  and  literal  translation  of  the  most  offensive  passages 
of  the  original.     Rufinus  now  defended  his  own  orthodoxy  (400 — 401) 


454 


SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 


in:  Apologiae  in  Hieronymum  libri  duo,  written  in  a  somewhat  em- 
bittered and  even  hostile  temper.  In  the  meantime  Pope  Anastasius 
called  Rufinus  to  account  for  his  defence  of  Origen,  but  seems  to 
have  been  easily  satisfied  by  the  short:  Apologia  ad  Anastasium 
Romanae  urbis  episcopum.  After  his  departure  from  Rome  (398) 
Rufinus  busied  himself  at  Aquileia  with  literary  labors,  until  the 
Visigothic  invasion  compelled  him  to  hasten  southward.  He  died  at 
Messina  in  Sicily,  in  410.  —  Rufinus  is  best  known  as  a  translator 
of  a  number  of  Greek  works  into  Latin.  Several  Christian  Greek 
writings,  among  them  the  above-mentioned  works  of  Origen  and  Pam: 
philus,  have  come  down  to  us  only  in  his  translations.  We  have 
mentioned  elsewhere  his  translations  of  the  Clementine  Recognitions 
(§  26,  3),  numerous  biblico-exegetical  writings  and  spurious  dialogues 
of  Origen  (§  39,  4;  45,  2),  the  Sententiae  of  Sextus  (§  56,  7),  the 
Church  History  of  Eusebius  (§  62,  2),  several  discourses  and  the 
monastic  rules  of  St.  Basil  (§  6j,  14),  several  discourses  of  Gregory 
of  Nazianzus  (§  68,  11),  and  several  writings  of  Evagrius  Ponticus 
(§  70,  4).  We  may  mention  here  the  translation  of  Josephus'  work 
on  the  Jewish  War;  it  is  not  at  all  certain,  however,  that  this  trans- 
lation is  really  his  work.  Rufinus  translates  with  great  freedom;  he 
deals  with  his  original,  not  only  as  a  literary  critic  of  its  form  but 
as  a  theological  censor  of  its  contents.  Thus  the  Church  History  of 
Eusebius  became  in  his  hands  a  new  work:  he  compressed  the  ten 
books  of  the  Greek  text  into  nine,  and  added  two  books  that  dealt 
with  the  events  of  324 — 395.  This  Historia  ecclesiastica  thus  con- 
structed by  Rufinus  in  the  years  402 — 403  was  the  first  Western 
attempt  at  a  history  of  the  Church;  for  depth  of  thought  and  ac- 
curacy of  treatment  it  is  far  inferior  to  the  Chronicle  of  Sulpicius 
Severus.  The  writings  of  the  latter  on  St.  Martin  find  a  counter 
part  in  the  Vitae  Patrum  of  Rufinus,  a  work  that  was  afterwards 
better  known  as  Historia  eremitica  or  Historia  monachorum.  This 
collection  of  biographies  of  Egyptian  monks  was  made  between  404 
and  410.  By  some  it  is  held  to  be  an  independent  work  based  on 
the  personal  knowledge  and  reminiscences  of  Rufinus;  by  others  it 
is  said  to  be  merely  a  version  or  a  recasting  of  an  earlier  Greek 
work  on  the  same  subject  (§  79,  4).  The:  Vita  S.  Eugeniae  virginis 
et  martyris,  attributed  to  Rufinus,  is  a  spurious  work.  He  wrote,  at 
the  request  of  Paulinus  of  Nola,  an  interpretation  of  the  blessing  of 
Jacob  (Gen.  xlix);  according  to  Gennadius1  it  was  an  exposition  of 
the  patriarchal  blessings  in  their  triple  sense:  triplici  i.  e.  historico, 
morali  et  mystico  sensu  (De  benedictionibus  patriarcharum  libri  duo). 
He  has  wrongly  been  credited  with  commentaries  on  the  first  seventy- 
five  Psalms  and  on  Osee,  Joel  and  Amos.  From  a  very  early  period 
his  exposition  of  the  Apostles'  Creed  (Commentarius  in  symbolum 
1  De  viris  ill.,  c.   17. 


§    93-      ST.   JEROME.  455 

apostolorum)  was  highly  esteemed;  it  is  of  considerable  importance 
for  the  history  of  all  ancient  baptismal  creeds.  The  two  works  De 
fide,  one  of  which  is  extant  only  in  twelve  short  anathematisms, 
were  by  mistake  reckoned  among  his  writings.  His  extensive  corre- 
spondence, known  to  Gennadius1,   has  perished. 

4.  works  on  rufinus.  pope  anastasius.  —  There  is  no  complete 
edition  of  Rufinus,  i.  e.  of  his  translations  and  his  own  writings.  The 
latter  were  first  edited  by  D.  Vallarsi,  Verona,  1745  (the  second  volume 
that  was  to  contain  the  Latin  translations  by  Rufinus  did  not  appear). 
This  edition  contains  all  the  works  mentioned  above,  but  of  the  Historia 
Ecclesiastica  only  the  last  two  books  i.  e.  the  continuation  of  Eusebius 
{Migne,  PL.,  xxi,  Paris,  1849).  A  new  edition  of  the  text  of  the  Historia 
ecclesiastica  has  been  brought  out  by  Ed.  Schwartz  and  Th.  Monunsen, 
Die  Kirchengeschichte  (des  Eusebius)  mit  der  lateinischen  Übersetzung  des 
Rufinus,  part  I,  books  i — v,  Leipzig,  1903  (Griech.-christl.  Schriftsteller).  The 
Libellus  de  fide  is  in  Migne,  PL.,  xxi.  1123 — 1124  and  xlviii.  239 — 254, 
among  the  works  of  Marius  Mercator.  J.  Klein,  Über  eine  Handschrift 
des  Nikolaus  von  Cues,  Berlin,  1866,  pp.  131 — 141,  edited  a  collation  of 
the  Migne  text  of  the  Commentarius  in  symb.  apost.,  with  a  codex  Cusanus 
saec.  xii.,  and  published  (pp.  141 — 143)  from  the  same  codex  a  profession 
of  faith:  Eiusdem  (Rufini)  dicta  de  fide  catholica.  The  authorship  of  the 
Historia  monachorum  is  fully  discussed  by  Do?n  Cuthbert  Butler ,  The 
Lausiac  History  of  Palladius,  University  Press,  Cambridge,  1898,  i.  6 — 77. 
The  Commentarius  is  discussed  by  H.  Bruell,  De  Tyrannii  Rufini  Aqui- 
leiensis  commentario  in  symbolum  apostolorum  i — ii  (2  Progr.),  Düren, 
1872 — 1879;  Bruell  also  translated  it  into  German,  Kempten,  1876  (Bibl. 
der  Kirchenväter).  Pfoulkes  raised  some  doubts  (1872)  concerning  the 
genuineness  or  the  integrity  of  this  work  of.  Rufinus ,  which  were  shown 
to  be  groundless  by  F.  Kattenbusch,  Beiträge  zur  Geschichte  des  altkirch- 
lichen Taufsymbols  (Progr.),  Giessen,  18Q2,  pp.  27 — 32;  Id.,  Das  aposto- 
lische Symbol,  Leipzig,  1895,  i.  102  f.  On  the  spurious  commentary  on 
Psalms  i — lxxv  see  §  in,  6.  —  Not  to  speak  of  spurious  fragments,  three 
letters  of  Pope  Anastasius  deal  with  the  Origenist  controversies ;  they  are 
addressed  to  the  bishops  John  of  Jerusalem ,  Simplicianus  of  Milan ,  and 
Venerius  of  Milan.  The  first  two  are  printed  among  the  works  of  Rufinus 
in  Migne,  PL.,  xx.  65—76;  the  letter  of  John  is  also  ib.,  xxi.  627  —  632 
(among  the  works  of  Rufinus),  and  again  among  the  works  of  Marius 
Mercator  (ib.,  xlviii.  231—240);  the  letter  to  Simplicianus  is  also  among 
the  works  of  St.  Jerome  (ib.,  xxii.  772 — 774).  The  letter  to  Venerius  was 
first  edited  by  C.  Ruelens,  in  Bibliophile  Beige  (187 1),  pp.  123 — 129,  and 
again  by  J.  van  de?i  Gheyn ,  in  Revue  d'histoire  et  de  litter,  religieuses 
(1899),  iv.  1 — 12.  For  a  German  version  of  the  letters  of  Anastasius, 
genuine  and  spurious,  cf.  S.  Wenzlowsky ,  Die  Briefe  der  Päpste  (Bibl.  der 
Kirchenväter),  ii.  489 — 512. 

§  93.    St.  Jerome. 

1.  LIFE  OF  ST.  JEROME  TO  379.  —  Sophronius  Eusebius  Hieronymus 
was  born  at  Stridon,  a  border  city  of  Dalmatia  and  Pannonia,  accord- 
ing to  some  in  331,  according  to  others  not  before  340.  He  tells 
us  himself2  that  he  has  been  nourished  from  his  cradle  on  Catholic 

1  L.  c.  2  Ep.  82,  2. 


456  SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

milk.  When  about  twenty  years  of  age  he  was  sent  to  Rome  for  the 
purpose  of  receiving  a  better  education  in  its  schools.  Here  he  became 
an  enthusiastic  auditor  of  the  discourses  of  the  grammarian  Aelius 
Donatus  on  the  Latin  classics,  particularly  Terence  and  -Vergil.  He 
learned  Greek  also,  and  read  many  writings  of  the  Greek  philosophers. 
He  was  particularly  attracted  to  the  study  of  rhetoric ;  its  command- 
ing influence  is  noticeable  in  all  his  works.  He  was  already  a  savant 
in  the  best  sense  of  the  word,  and  devoted  much  time  and  labor 
(summo  studio  ac  labore)1  to  the  creation  of  a  library.  He  did  not 
entirely  escape  the  immoral  contagion  of  the  great  city;  nevertheless, 
his  naturally  deep  piety  withdrew  him  from  these  youthful  errors, 
and  he  was  baptized  by  Pope  Liberius,  though  it  was  then  the 
custom  to  put  off  baptism  to  a  more  advanced  age.  From  Rome 
he  betook  himself  to  Trier,  one  of  the  best  universities  in  the  West; 
it  was  here  that  he  first  experienced  an  attraction  to  the  study  of 
theology.  We  meet  him  later  at  Aquileia  in  a  circle  of  youthful 
friends,  who  exercised  no  little  influence  on  the  pious  inclinations  of 
his  heart  and  his  eagerness  for  learning.  For  reasons  unknown  to 
us  he  left  Aquileia  and  Italy,  and  began,  with  some  friends,  a  long 
journey  through  the  East  visiting  on  the  way  Thrace,  Bithynia, 
Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia  and  Cilicia.  Late  in  the  summer  of  373, 
he  arrived  at  Antioch.  In  this  city  a  fever  carried  off  a  very  dear 
friend  of  Jerome :  ex  duobus  oculis  unum  .  .  .  partem  animae  meae 2. 
He  tells  us  in  the  same  place  that  he  fell  a  prey  himself  to  several 
diseases:  quidquid  morborum  esse  poterat,  that  brought  him  to  the 
edge  of  the  grave.  Wearied  of  the  world  and  sighing  for  rest,  he 
gave  up  his  original  design  of  reaching  Jerusalem,  and  betook  himself 
to  the  desert  of  Chalcis,  «the  Thebais  of  Syria»,  where  for  the  next 
five  years  he  was  to  lead  a  hermit's  life.  In  the  practice  of  the 
most  severe  penance  he  found  the  peace  of  mind  he  had  been  seeking; 
with  his  own  hands  he  procured  the  necessaries  of  lifes  and  gradually 
took  up  again  his  learned  occupations  and  literary  enterprises.  He 
was  perhaps  the  first  Western  Christian  to  undertake  the  study  of 
Hebrew  under  the  guidance  of  a  baptized  Jew:  «I  alone  know,  and 
those  who  were  then  my  companions,  what  labor  this  study  cost  me, 
how  often  I  lost  courage,  how  often  I  abandoned  and  again  took 
up  my  purpose,  moved  by  the  thirst  of  knowledge.  I  thank  God 
that  I  now  enjoy  the  sweet  fruits  of  the  bitter  seeds  of  my  studies».3 

2.  JEROME  AT  CONSTANTINOPLE  AND  ROME  (379—385).  —  The 
dogmatic  controversies  of  this  period  profoundly  agitated  the  Christians 
of  Antioch,  and  their  echoes  reached  even  the  depths  of  the  Chalcis 
desert.  It  was  apropos  of  them  that  the  Saint  wrote4,  about  378, 
to  Pope  Damasus  requesting   his   opinion    on   the   use    of  the  words 

1  Ep.  22,  30.  2  E  3  E      I25 

4  Ep.   15   16. 


§    93-      ST.   JEROME.  457 

oöaia  and  uTtooraotQ.  In  the  meantime  he  grew  weary  of  the  conflict, 
and  without  awaiting  the  reply  of  Damasus  returned  from  his  solitude 
to  Antioch  where  he  was  reluctantly  ordained  a  priest,  on  condition 
that  he  might  remain  a  monk  i.  e.  be  held  free  from  pastoral  cares1. 
It  would  seem  that  in  the  desert  he  had  recognized  his  calling  as 
that  of  an  ecclesiastical  scholar.  From  Antioch  he  journeyed  to 
Constantinople,  probably  in  379,  attracted  by  the  reputation  of  Gregory 
of  Nazianzus,  from  whom  he  received  instruction  in  the  science  of 
biblical  exegesis.  In  the  imperial  city  he  also  met  Gregory  of  Nyssa, 
and  doubtless  other  Greek  theologians  of  the  East.  At  the  same 
time  he  threw  himself  with  enthusiasm  into  the  study  of  the  earlier 
Greek  Fathers,  especially  Origen  and  Eusebius.  Ecclesiastical  business 
(ecclesiastica  necessitas)2  interrupted  this  period  of  leisure  and  drew 
him  to  Rome  where  a  Council  was  being  held  (382)  in  the  hope  of 
terminating  the  Meletian  schism  at  Antioch.  Jerome  took  part  in  it 
by  invitation,  and  remained  at  Rome  in  order  to  aid  the  pope  in  his 
replies  to  synodal  communications  of  Eastern  and  Western  churches3. 
While  the  synod  in  question  seems  to  have  had  no  appreciable 
results,  this  sojourn  at  Rome  was  of  great  importance  for  the  future 
career  of  St.  Jerome.  Throughout  Italy,  and  especially  at  Rome, 
complaints  had  long  been  heard  of  the  innumerable  differences  in 
the  current  Latin  biblical  texts.  Jerome  was  therefore  requested  by 
the  pope  to  prepare  a  text  that  should  thenceforth  be  the  normal 
one ;  it  was  this  commission  that  gave  fixity  of  purpose  and  character 
to  his  studies  in  the  following  decades.  He  enjoyed  the  unbounded 
confidence  of  Damasus,  and  his  position  was  now  one  of  influence 
and  dignity.  All  upright  men  held  in  high  esteem  the  counsellor  of 
the  pope,  the  ecclesiastical  savant  whose  vast  learning  was  then  un- 
equalled, the  ascetic  who  appeared  in  his  writings  as  the  apostle  of 
self-renouncement  and  self-consecration  to  God.  Noble  ladies  of  the 
highest  rank  declared  themselves  his  disciples,  among  them  Marcella 
and  Paula,  both  of  ancient  patrician  race,  both  widows  entirely 
devoted  to  the  service  of  God  and  their  neighbor,  and  both  leaders 
in  a  social  circle  that  shared  their  thoughts  and  views.  He  could 
scarcely  hope  to  escape  the  banter,  enmities,  and  insinuations  of  the 
opposite  extreme  of  Roman  society;  indeed,  public  opinion  gradually 
became  unfavorable  to  him.  Among  the  Roman  clergy  not  a  few 
had  been  deeply  irritated  by  the  pitiless  criticism  of  their  moral  life 
that  the  Saint  had  expressed,  even  in  his  writings.  It  is  likely,  also,  that 
his  influence  with  Damasus  roused  envy;  his  admiration  for  Origen 
was  moreover  a  cause  for  scandal.  It  came  about  that,  although 
in  the  beginning  of  his  sojourn  at  Rome  he  was  quite  unanimously 
held    to  be  the  proper  successor   of  Damasus4,    public   opinion   had 

1  Contra  Ioannem  Hieros.,  c.  41.  2  Ep.    127,   7.  3  Ep.    123,    10. 

4  Ep.  45,  3- 


458  SECOND   PERIOD.      THIRD   SECTION. 

been  considerably  modified  before  that  pope's  death  (Dec.  10.,  384). 
Siricius  was  chosen  his  successor,  and  Jerome  began  to  think  seriously 
of  «returning  from  Babylon  to  Jerusalem» 1. 

3.  JEROME  AT  BETHLEHEM  (386 — 420).  —  He  began  his  journey 
in  the  August  of  385;  toward  the  end  of  autumn  Paula  followed 
him,  with  her  (third)  daughter  Eustochium.  From  Antioch,  where 
they  met  early  in  the  following  winter,  they  travelled  together  to  Pale- 
stine, in  order  to  satisfy  their  piety  at  the  sites  made  holy  by  the 
life  and  sufferings  of  the  Redeemer;  thence  they  went  to  Egypt  where 
they  visited  Alexandria  and  the  monastic  city  in  the  Nitrian  hills. 
On  their  return  to  the  Holy  Land  they  took  up  their  residence  at 
Bethlehem  in  the  autumn  of  386.  In  a  few  years  a  monastery  of  men 
and  another  of  women  arose,  close  to  the  manger  in  which  Christ 
was  born,  the  former  under  the  guidance  of  Jerome,  the  latter  governed 
by  Paula.  Shelters  for  pilgrims  were  also  erected  along  the  imperial 
highway  that  led  to  Bethlehem.  Jerome  began  again  at  great  expense 
and  amid  great  difficulties  the  collection  of  a  library;  he  also  devoted 
himself  anew  to  the  study  of  Hebrew  (and  Aramaic)  in  which  he 
took  lessons,  usually  at  night,  from  learned  rabbis.  In  turn  he  taught 
the  elements  of  Hebrew  to  others,  particularly  Paula  and  Eustochium, 
taught  also  theology  to  his  own  monks,  and  opened  a  school  for 
the  children  of  his  more  comfortable  neighbors  in  which  he  did  not 
disdain  to  explain  the  elements  of  grammar,  and  read  with  his  pupils 
the  Latin  classics,  especially  Vergil.  In  the  meantime  his  literary 
occupations  multiplied.  Sulpicius  Severus,  an  eye-witness,  thus  de- 
scribes2 the  life  of  Jerome:  «He  is  for  ever  immersed  in  his  studies 
and  his  books;  neither  day  nor  night  does  he  take  any  rest;  he  is 
for  ever  occupied  with  reading  or  writing».  Jerome  had  now  reached 
a  haven  of  peace,  he  had  found  what  was  lacking  to  him  at  Rome, 
and  his  correspondence  at  this  period  gives  evidence  of  the  deep 
satisfaction  of  his  soul,  notably  his  letter:  Ad  Marcellam,  de  Sanctis 
locis3.  The  deplorable  Origenist  controversies  of  398 — 404  were 
destined  to  disturb  the  peace  of  this  paradise  of  Christian  scholars. 
Until  then  Jerome  had  been  a  very  ardent  admirer  of  Origen;  the 
authority  of  St.  Epiphanius  now  caused  him  to  abandon  his  former 
opinions  concerning  the  great  Alexandrine  (§  71,  1),  and  to  come 
forth  as  a  leader  of  the  anti-Origenists.  He  felt  it  necessary  to  de- 
scribe his  former  devotion  to  Origen  as  a  very  limited  and  conditional 
approval  of  his  writings:  Laudavi  interpretem,  non  dogmatisten, 
ingenium,  non  fidem,  philosophum,  non  apostolum;  si  mihi  creditis, 
Origenistes  numquam  fui;  si  non  creditis,  nunc  esse  cessavit  At 
the  same  time  he  entered  into  a  polemical  correspondence  with  John, 
bishop  of  Jerusalem,  and  with  the  friend  of  his  youth,  Rufinus  (§  92,  3). 

1  Ep.  45,  6;  cf.  46,   11.  2  Dial)  j    9>  5>  3  Ep#  46i 

4  Ep.  84,  2  3. 


§  93-    ST-  Jerome.  459 

The  point  at  issue  was  less  the  teaching  of  Origen  in  those  matters 
where  he  was  at  variance  with  the  orthodox  faith,  than  the  personal 
question  which  of  the  disputants  could  rightly  be  accused  of  Origenism. 
The  Pelagian  troubles  were  another  source  of  annoyance  and  conflict 
for  the  indefatigable  champion  of  the  Christian  faith.  The  defenders 
of  Pelagius  replied  with  violence  to  the  attacks  of  Jerome.  Early  in 
416  a  number  of  them,  including  monks  and  ecclesiastics,  broke 
into  his  monastery,  set  fire  to  it,  and  maltreated  the  inmates;  Jerome 
escaped  by  a  hasty  flight.  He  was  now  weary  of  life,  though  ever 
alert  in  mind  and  ready  for  the  fray.  Many  cares  and  sorrows 
filled  his  declining  years;  he  quitted  this  world  for  eternal  peace 
September  30.,  420. 

4.  HIS  TRANSLATION  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  —  Any  account  of  the 
writings  of  St.  Jerome  may  well  begin  with  his  translation  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  into  Latin.  It  is  at  once  the  most  important  and 
the  most  meritorious  of  his  works,  a  ripe  fruit  of  the  most  painstak- 
ing studies,  a)  We  have  already  said  that  about  383  he  was  charged 
by  Pope  Damasus  with  the  formation  of  a  serviceable  and  trust- 
worthy Latin  text  of  the  Bible.  What  the  Pope  wanted  was  not  a 
new  translation,  but  a  restoration  of  the  so-called  Itala  to  its  original 
state,  so  far  as  that  was  possible;  except  for  grave  reasons  Jerome 
was  to  make  no  changes  or  corrections.  The  Itala  had  long  been  the 
usual  ecclesiastical  text  in  Italy,  but  in  the  course  of  time  had  suffered 
much  alteration.  At  first  Jerome  revised  the  text  of  the  four  Gospels, 
and  then  that  of  the  other  books  of  the  New  Testament.  He  added 
a  revision  of  the  Psalter  based  on  the  xoivi]  ixdoaig  of  the  Septuagint; 
this  latter  task,  however,  as  he  tells  us  in  his  preface,  was  in  great 
part  done  with  haste  and  imperfectly:  cursim,  magna  ex  parte1. 
This  revised  text,  by  order  of  Pope  Damasus,  was  henceforth  used 
in  the  Roman  liturgy2.  In  other  churches  the  revised  Psalter  of 
Jerome  was  known  as  Psalterium  Romanum,  in  contradistinction  to 
the  older  text  which  was  henceforth  known  as  Psalterium  Vetus. 
Until  Pius  V.  (1566 — 1572)  this  revised  Psalter  was  used  in  all  the 
Roman  churches;  it  is  still  the  text  used  at  St.  Peter's  in  the  recita- 
tion of  the  canonical  hours;  fragments  of  this  old  Psalterium  Romaruam 
are  still  found  in  the  Roman  Missal  and  the  Roman  Breviary.  The 
New  Testament  in  the  revision  of  St.  Jerome  was  willingly  received, 
not  only  at  Rome  and  in  Italy,  but  gradually  throughout  the  whole 
West,  and  has,  since  that  time,  always  remained  in  general  use  in 
the  Latin  Church,  b)  Jerome  had  scarcely  reached  the  Holy  Land 
when  he  found  in  the  library  of  the  Church  of  Caesarea  the  Hexapla 
of  Origen,  not  a  copy  but  the  original  (§  39,  3).  Once  settled  at 
Bethlehem,  he  began  the  revision  of  the  Latin  text  of  the  Old  Testa- 

1  Praef.  in  Ps.  2  Migne,  PL.,  xxix. 


4Ö0  SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

ment  in  accordance  with  the  Hexaplar  text,  always  keeping  in  view 
the  original.  He  began  with  the  Psalms,  and  emended  the  Itala  text 
in  exact  conformity  to  the  Hexaplar  text  of  the  Septuagint;  he  also 
made  use  in  his  manuscript  of  the  critical  signs  (asterisci  and  obelisci) 
of  Origen.  This  Psalter  text  was  first  received  and  widely  used  in 
Gaul,  whence  its  name  of  Psalterium  Gallicanum i;  at  a  later  date 
it  was  accepted  throughout  the  West,  with  the  above-mentioned  ex- 
ceptions; it  is  to-day  in  common  use  as  a  part  of  the  Vulgate  and 
the  Breviary.  In  the  same  way  Jerome  also  revised  most  of  the 
other  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  greater  part  of  these  revised 
texts  unfortunately  disappeared,  fraude  cuiusdam2,  before  he  could 
publish  them ;  only  his  text  of  Job  which  he  completed  shortly  after 
the  revision  of  the  Psalter3  has  reached  us.  c)  He  had  scarcely 
finished  this  work  of  revision  when  he  decided  to  translate  from  the 
original  (hebraica  Veritas)  the  entire  Old  Testament,  so  far  as  it  was 
then  extant  in  Hebrew  or  in  Aramaic.  He  translated  first,  certainly 
about  390,  the  four  books  of  Kings,  then  the  book  of  Job,  after- 
wards the  Prophets,  and  at  the  same  time  the  Psalms.  A  tedious 
spell  of  illness  interrupted  his  labors.  He  began  again  towards  the 
end  of  393,  and  translated  the  three  Solomonic  books,  then  (394 
to  396)  Esdras  and  Nehemias,  Paralipomenon  and  Genesis,  and  by 
405  the  four  other  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  with  Josue,  Judges, 
Ruth,  Esther,  Tobias  and  Judith.  The  latter  two  books  he  trans- 
lated from  the  Aramaic,  while  he  took  from  the  Greek  the  deutero- 
canonical  parts  of  Daniel  and  Esther4.  He  did  not  translate,  perhaps 
because  he  doubted  their  canonicity,  the  books  of  Baruch,  First  and 
Second  Maccabees,  Ecclesiasticus  and  Wisdom,  nor  did  he  make 
another  translation  of  the  New  Testament.  He  translated  the  Gospel 
of  the  Hebrews  into  Greek  and  Latin  (ca.  390;  §  29,  2),  but  this 
double  translation  has  perished.  — -  The  purpose  of  Jerome  was  to 
reproduce  the  original  text,  with  fidelity  and  accuracy,  but  not  with 
servility;  he  was  desirous  also  of  preserving  the  traditional  language 
of  the  Itala,  in  so  far  as  it  was  possible  to  do  so  without  offending 
against  the  canons  of  literary  taste.  The  best  versions  are  those  of 
the  historical  proto-canonical  books;  the  least  meritorious  are  those 
of  Tobias  done  in  one  day  and  Judith  done  in  one  night,  as  he 
tells  us  in  the  prefaces  to  these  works.  At  the  same  time  it  must 
be  admitted  that  his  version  of  the  Solomonic  books  is  an  excellent 
one,  although  he  states  in  his  preface  that  it  was  done  in  a  space 
of  three  days  (tridui  opus).  It  is  true  that  he  can  be  reproached 
with  both  inexact  renderings  and  positive  errors  in  all  these  books; 
nevertheless,  among  all  the  ancient  Latin  versions  not  one  can  even 
remotely  compete  with  his,   so  conscientiously  did  he  strive  to  fulfil 

\  ™gn€>  PL->  W  2  EP-    134,   2.  a  Migne,  PL.,  xxix. 

Ib.,  xxvin — xxix. 


§    93«      ST-   JEROME.  46I 

the  highest  duty  of  a  good  translator.  It  was  slowly,  however,  and 
very  gradually,  that  his  versions  superseded  the  earlier  ones  in  general 
ecclesiastical  use.  Since  the  seventh  century  they  have  been  generally 
adopted  throughout  the  Latin  Church,  and  since  the  twelfth  century 
they  have  inherited  from  the  older  translation  the  title  of  Vulgate. 
The  text  of  the  Psalterium  Gallicanum  was,  however,  so  deeply 
rooted  in  popular  use  and  affection  that  the  new  version  of  our  Saint 
was  powerless  to  supersede  it.  Also  those  deuterocanonical  books  which 
Jerome  did  not  translate  continued  to  be  read  in  the  Old-Itala  text. 
5 .  OJHER  EXEGETIC  LABORS.  — ■  They  are  partly  translations  from 
the  Greek  exhibiting  a  greater  or  lesser  degree  of  recension,  and 
partly  independent  works,  a)  To  the  first  category  belong  trans- 
lations of  a  series  of  homilies  of  Origen:  14  on  Jeremias  and  14  on 
Ezechiel  (translated  at  Constantinople  about  380) 1;  2  on  the  Canticle 
of  canticles,  translated  at  Rome  about  383  2 ;  39  on  Luke,  translated 
at  Bethlehem  about  389s;  9  on  Isaias,  probably  also  translated  at 
Bethlehem4;  Liber  interpretationis  hebraicorum  nominum5,  written 
about  390,  an  attempt  at  an  etymological  interpretation  of  the  proper 
names  in  the  scriptural  books  (§  39,  11);  finally  his:  De  situ  et 
nominibus  locorum  hebraicorum  liber6,  written  also  about  390,  and 
much  superior,  as  a  scientific  work,  to  the  preceding  composition; 
it  was  a  revision  of  the  biblical  topography  of  Eusebius  of  Caesarea, 
with  many  omissions,  but  also  with  some  additions  and  corrections 
that  are  valuable  because  of  the  personal  knowledge  of  the  author. 
b)  In  392  he  drew  up7  a  catalogue  of  his  own  exegetical  writings. 
The  order  is  probably  chronological :  Scripsi  ...  de  Seraphim  (a  hasty 
treatise  on  Is.  vi.  usually  found  among  the  letters  of  Jerome)8,  de 
Osanna9  et  de  frugi  et  luxurioso  filiis10;  de  tribus  quaestionibus  legis 
veteris11;  ...  in  epistolam  Pauli  ad  Galatas  commentariorum  libros  iii12, 
item  in  epistolam  ad  Ephesios  libros  iii13;  in  epistolam  ad  Titum 
librum  unum  u ;  in  epistolam  ad  Philemonem  librum  unum 15 ;  in  Ec- 
clesiasten  commentarios 16 ;  quaestionum  hebraicarum  in  Genesim  librum 
unum 17,  a  series  of  difficult  and  important  passages  from  the  Old 
Itala  version  critically  discussed  in  the  light  of  the  Hebrew  text  and 
the  various  Greek  versions;  ...  in  Psalmos  x — xvi  tractatus  vii  (a  lost 
and  otherwise  unknown  work)  .  .  . ;  scripsi  praeterea  in  Michaeam  ex- 
planationum  libros  ii18;  in  Sophoniam  librum  unum19;  in  Nahum  librum 

1  Ib.,  xxv.   583 — 786.  2  Ib.,  xxiii.    1117— 1144. 

3  Ib.,  xxvi.   219—306.  4  Ib.,  xxiv.   901 — 936. 

5  Ib.,  xxiii.   771—858.  e  lb.,  xxiii.  859  —  928. 

7  De  viris  ill.,  c.    135.  8  Ep.    18:  Migne,  PL.,  xxii.   361 — 376. 

9  Ep.  20:   ib.,  xxii.  375—379.  '°  Ep.   21:  ib.,  xxii.  379 — 394. 

11  Ep.  36:  ib.,  xxii.  452—461.  12  Ib.,  xxvi.   307 — 438. 

13  Ib.,  xxvi.  439—554.  u  Ib.,   xxvi.  555 — 600.  15  Ib.,  xxvi.   599 — 618. 

16  Ib.,  xxiii.    1009  —  1 1 16.  17  Ib.,  xxiii.   935 — IOIO. 

18  Ib.,  xxv.    1 151  — 1230.  19  Ib.,   xxv.    1337— 1388. 


4Ö2  SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

unum1;  in  Habacuc  libros  ii2;  in  Aggaeum  librum  unum3,  multaque 
alia  de   opere   prophetali  quae   nunc   habeo   in   manibus   et   necdum 
expleta  sunt.  ...  At  a  later  date,   Jerome   composed    copious   com- 
mentaries on  the  twelve  minor  and  the  four  greater  prophets4;  only 
that   on  Jeremias   remained    unfinished.     He    omits   in  this  catalogue 
an  allegorical  exposition  of  the   prophet  Abdias,    composed   by  him 
about  370,  and  later  (about  396) 5  judged  by  himself  in  the  preface 
to  Abdias  to  be  a  juvenile  production,  doubtless  not  meant  for  the 
public,  and  therefore  allowed  to  perish.    He  also  omits  the  Commen- 
tarioli  in  Psalmos  which  he  later  recognized  as  his  own  6 ;  these  brief 
scholia   on  all  the  Psalms,   supplementary  to  Origen's  Psalm-scholia, 
were   long   supposed  to  be  lost,    but   were  discovered   lately   owing 
to   the   industrious   research   and    the    good    fortune   of  Dom  Morin. 
Mention   must  also   be   made,    not   only  of  a  number  of  exegetical 
letters  and   replies,    but   also    of  a   commentary   on   the    Gospel    of 
St.  Matthew 7  written  in  398,  and  of  another  on  the  Apocalypse.    The 
last  work  was  supposed  to  have  perished  but  was  recognized,    as  it 
seems,  by  Haussleiter  in  the  Summa  dicendorum,  prefixed  by  Beatus, 
an  eighth-century  abbot  of  Libana,  to  his  commentary  on  the  Apo- 
calypse.   This  Summa  dicendorum   is,    however,    scarcely  more  than 
an   extract   from   the   commentary  of  the  Donatist   writer  Tichonius 
(see  no.   13)  which  had  already  been  used  by  Jerome  for  His  recen- 
sion  of  the  commentary  of  Victorinus   of  Pettau  (§  58,   1).     Certain 
exegetical   works  attributed   to  Jerome   are   spurious:    Breviarium  in 
Psalmos8;  Quaestiones  hebraicae  in  libros  Regum  et  in  libros  Paralip.9; 
Expositio  interlinearis  libri  Job10;  Commentarii  in  Evangelia11;  Com- 
mentarii   in  epistolas  S.  Pauli 12,  and  others.  —  From  the  standpoint 
of  philological    and  historico-archaeological  knowledge,   as  well  as  of 
the  vast  extent  of  his  reading  —  in  other  words,    from    the   stand- 
point  of  erudition  — ,  these   expository   writings   of  St.  Jerome   are 
easily  the  first  among  all  similar   products   of  Western    ecclesiastical 
literature.    On  the  other  hand,  they  are  not,  however,  faultless :  many 
of  them  are  doubtless  only  hasty  outlines,    or  were  rapidly  dictated 
to  his  scribes.    When  he  was  writing  his  commentary  on  Ephesians 
he  was  wont  to   turn    out  daily  a   thousand  lines13;    he  dictated  his 
commentary   on   St.  Matthew  in  fourteen   days14;    he   often  dictated 
whatever  thoughts  were  uppermost  in   his   mind    (dicto  quodcumque 
in  buccamvenerit)".    Such  haste,  often  the  result  of  external  causes, 

1  Migne,  PL.,  xxv.   1231  —  1272.  2  lbi>  xxv    1273— 1338. 

3  Ib.,  xxv.   1387— 1416.  *  Ib.,  xxiv  xxv. 

5  Coram,  in  Abd.,  praef.  «  Apol.  adv.  Ruf.,  i.    19. 

7  Migne,  PL.,  xxvi.   15—218.  «  Ib.,  xxvi.   821  — 1270. 

9  Ib.,  xxiii.    1329— 1402.  W  Ib.,  xxiii.   1407— 1470. 

11  Ib.,  xxx.   531—644.  12  Ib.,  xxx.  645—902. 

>3  Coram,  in  Ephes.,  lib.  2,  praef.  "  Coram,  in  Matth.,  praef. 

5  Coram,  m  Gal.,  lib.  3,  praef.;  Coram,  in  Abd.,  etc. 


§    93-      ST-    JEROME.  463 

is  responsible  for  occasional  shortcomings  of  St.  Jerome  as  an  exegete: 
imperfection  of  form,  poverty  of  contents,  waverings  and  contra- 
dictions, and  in  difficult  places  a  mere  repetition  of  the  ideas  of 
earlier  exegetes,  Christian  and  Jewish,  whereby  the  reader  is  left  to 
select  and  judge  for  himself.  However,  it  is  precisely  this  tendency 
to  compilation  that  lends  a  special  value  to  the  expository  works  of 
St.  Jerome.  They  are  a  real  mine  of  important  exegetical  materials, 
and  are  occasionally  very  helpful  in  the  study  of  the  earlier  history 
of  ecclesiastical  exegesis  and  doctrine.  Valuable  exegetical  fragments 
of  Origen,  Apollinaris,  Didymus  and  several  other  writers,  otherwise 
little  known  or  utterly  lost,  have  survived  in  the  pages  of  Jerome, 
mired  up  with  Jewish  traditions  of  exegesis  that  are  often  also  very 
interesting  and  precious.  Another  defect  of  Jerome,  possibly  more 
blameworthy  than  the  hurry  of  his  work,  is  a  lack  of  hermeneutical 
method,  an  uncertain  and  inconsistent  attitude  towards  the  fundamental 
principles  of  scriptural  exegesis.  In  general,  Jerome  seems  thoroughly 
convinced  that  it  is  necessary  to  fix  and  explain  the  historico-gram- 
matical  sense  of  Scripture.  At  the  same  time,  he  feels  himself  free 
to  seek  for  a  deeper  mystic  sense,  or  as  he  rhetorically  puts  it :  super 
fundamenta  historiae  spirituale  exstruere  aedificium;  historiae  Hebraeo- 
rum  tropologiam  nostrorum  miscere;  spiritualis  postea  intelligentiae 
vela  pandere1.  Occasionally,  his  exposition  is  as  capricious  and  un- 
natural as  that  of  Origen;  he  adheres  to  the  Alexandrine  theory  of 
a  triple  sense  of  Scripture,  and  agrees  with  Origen  that  the  literal 
sense  of  the  biblical  narrative  might  be  ridiculous  or  unworthy  or 
even  blasphemous,  in  which  cases  scandal  could  be  avoided  only  by 
use  of  the  allegorical  method2.  The  controversy  between  Jerome 
and  Augustine  apropos  of  Gal.  ii.  1 1  ff.  is  well-known.  In  his  com- 
mentary on  that  Epistle,  written  in  387  or  388,  Jerome  had  adopted 
an  earlier  idea  of  Origen,  afterwards  maintained  by  Chrysostom,  viz., 
that  the  disagreement  of  the  two  Apostles  was  not  real  but  feigned; 
they  really  thought  alike  concerning  the  binding  force  of  the  Law; 
St.  Peter,  however,  so  bore  himself  externally  as  to  permit  St.  Paul 
publicly  to  correct  him  (in  appearance,  xara  Tcpooamov)  and  thus 
ensure  general  recognition  of  the  truth.  In  a  number  of  letters 
St.  Augustine  undertook  to  convince  St.  Jerome  that  such  an  ex- 
egesis would  utterly  destroy  the  authority  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures, 
by  placing  them  in  the  attitude,  of  apologists  for  deceit  and  trickery, 
and  it  seems  that  St.  Jerome  afterwards  admitted3  the  correctness 
of  the  observations  of  Augustine. 

6.  HISTORICAL  WORKS.  —  In   his   own  days  Jerome  was   known 
as  an  historian.     Foremost  in  the  catalogue  of  his   writings,   written 

1  Coram,  in  Is.,  lib.  6,  praef. ;   Comra.  in  Zach.,  praef. ;  Ep.   64,    19. 

2  Ep.   21,    13;   52,   2. 

3  Dial,  contra  Pelasf.,   i.   22. 


464  SECOND    PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION.  • 

in  392  11  is  the  Vita  Pauli  monachi,  or  life  of  St.  Paul  of  Thebes2 
about  376,  a  real  folk-narrative  of  the  legend  of  this  hermit  which 
had  long  been  current  in  popular  oral  tradition.  About  391  he  wrote 
two  other  lives  of  Saints:  the  short  Vita  Male  hi  captivi  monachi* 
in  which  he  narrates  the  life  of  a  monk  of  the  desert  of  Chalcis, 
taken  down  by  himself  from  the  lips  of  the  narrator,  and  the  Vita 
beati  Hilarionis*,  the  history  of  the  first  Palestinian  hermit  (f  371), 
gathered  from  oral  and  written  sources,  and  rightly  entitled  to  be 
called  a  biography.  Jerome  never  executed  the  plan  mentioned  in 
the  first  chapter  of  the  life  of  Malchus  i.  e.  an  ecclesiastical  history 
from  the  Apostles  to  his  own  time,  as  exhibited  in  the  lives  of  mar- 
tyrs and  other  holy  men  and  women.  The  so-called  Martyrologium 
Hieronymianumb  is  a  copious  compilation  from  martyrological  ca- 
lendars belonging  to  various  churches,  brought  to  a  close  about  530 
in  Northern  Italy,  perhaps  at  Aquileia,  but  enriched  with  various 
additions  at  a  still  later  date.  The  known  manuscripts  all  belong 
to  a  Gallic  archetype  written  in  627  or  628  at  Luxeuil  or  Auxerre. 
We  may  also  mention  here  certain  necrologies,  or,  as  he  was  wont 
to  call  them,  Epitaphia,  of  his  friends,  thrown  into  epistolary  form 6. 
Mediaeval  scribes  used  these  compositions  as  models  precisely  in  the 
manner  in  which  they  used  his  Vitae  for  their  own  hagiographical 
writings.  More  important  are  two  other  historical  works:  one  a  ver- 
sion or  rather  an  improved  Latin  recension  and  continuation  of  the 
chronological  tables  that  formed  the  second  half  of  the  Chronicon 
of  Eusebius 7,  and  the  work  De  viris  illustrious 8.  The  former  work 
was  composed  at  Constantinople  about  380,  and  the  latter  at  Beth- 
lehem in  392.  In  the  first  of  these  works,  Jerome  furnished  the  West 
with  a  chronological  synopsis  of  universal  history.  Though  it  would 
scarcely  satisfy  the  exigencies  of  modern  science,  at  that  period  it 
was  a  highly  prized  contribution  and  greatly  furthered  all  kinds  of 
historical  labors.  The  latter  part  of  the  work  is  an  addition  to  the 
text  of  Eusebius  covering  the  years  326 — 379.  Though  only  a  col- 
lection of  miscellaneous  historical  information  with  no  insistence  on 
the  relative  importance  of  the  details,  it  was  nevertheless  destined 
to  be  the  guide  and  model  of  mediaeval  chroniclers.  We  have  al- 
ready described  (§  2,   1)   the  De  viris  illustrious  of  our  Saint. 

7.  DOGMATICO- POLEMICAL  WRITINGS.  —  By  calling  and  gifts, 
Jerome  was  rather  an  historian  than  a  dogmatic  writer.  His  doc- 
trinal writings  are  all  occasional.  Most  of  them  aim  at  repelling 
attacks  on  ecclesiastical  tradition,  and  in  all  it  is  the  polemical  inter- 

1  De  viris  ill.,  c.    135.  2  Migne,  PL.,  xxiii.    17—28. 

3  Ib.,  xxiii.   53—60.  4  Ib.,  xxiii.   29—54.  5  Ib.,  xxx.  435—486. 

6  Ep.  60,  on  Nepotian:  Ib.,  xxii.  589—602;  Ep.  108,  on  Paula:  Ib.,  xxii.  878 
to  906:  Ep.   127,  on  Marcella:  Ib.,  xxii.    1087—1095. 

7  Ib.,  xxvii;  cf.  §  62,   2.  8  Ib  ;  xxiii    601—720. 


§    93-      ST-   JEROME.  465 

est  that  predominates.  He  made  some  translations  from  the  Greek, 
but  they  have  perished  in  part  at  least.  Thus,  of  his  translation  of 
the  four  books  of  Origen  nep}  äpywv  (§  39,  8),  made  about  399, 
only  a  few  insignificant  fragments  have  reached  us1.  On  the  other 
hand,  his  translation  or  recension  of  the  work  of  Didymus  the  Blind 
(§  70,  2)  on  the  Holy  Ghost  has  reached  us;  Jerome  began  it  at 
Rome,  and  finished  it  at  Bethlehem ;  it  is,  in  its  way,  a  very  success- 
ful piece  of  literary  composition  2.  The  earliest  known  of  his  dogmatic 
writings  is  a  dialogue  against  the  schismatic  faction  of  the  Luciferians 
(§87,  2):  Altercatio  Luciferiani  et  orthodoxi3,  composed  at  Antioch, 
probably  in  379.  About  383  he  wrote  at  Rome,  in  defence  of  the 
perpetual  virginity  of  Mary,  his:  Liber  adv.  Helvidium  de  perpetua 
virginitate  b.  Mariae4,  a  work  inspired  by  virtuous  indignation  and 
remarkable  for  robust  vigor  of  diction.  Closely  related,  in  its  first 
part  at  least,  is  the  work  Adversus  Jovinianum*,  probably  written  in 
392.  In  the  first  book  of  this  work  he  extols,  not  without  exagge- 
ration, the  dignity  and  merit  of  virginity  as  compared  with  the  mar- 
ried state;  in  the  second  book  he  attacks  the  teaching  of  Jovinian  that 
baptized  persons  could  not  sin,  that  fasting  was  of  no  avail,  and 
that  the  reward  of  all  true  Christians  would  be  an  absolutely  equal 
one.  The  works:  Contra  Ioannem  Hierosolymitanum  6,  written  in  398 
or  399»  the:  Apologiae  adv.  libros  Rufini  libri  ii7,  written  in  402, 
and  the:  Liber  tertius  s.  ultima  responsio  adv.  scripta  Rufini8,  written 
shortly  after  the  preceding  work,  are  a  sad  result  of  the  Origenistic 
controversies,  and  betray  a  high  degree  of  personal  irritation.  In 
the  little  work  Contra  Vigilantium* \  written  in  406  in  one  night,  he 
breaks  a  lance  for  the  ecclesiastical  cultus  of  the  martyrs  and  the 
Saints,  the  voluntary  poverty  of  monks,  and  the  celibacy  of  the 
clergy.  Finally,  towards  the  end  of  415,  he  appeared  as  the  de- 
fender of  the  ecclesiastical  doctrine  of  grace,  against  the  teaching 
of  Pelagius.  The  three  books  of  this:  Dialogus  contra  Pelagianos 10, 
are  famous  for  their  literary  perfection. 

8.  LETTERS  AND  HOMILIES.  —  From  the  beginning  of  the  mediaeval 
times  the  letters  of  Jerome  have  been  accounted  the  most  charming 
of  his  writings.  Indeed,  both  as  to  contents  and  style,  they  are  at- 
tractive and  fascinating  compositions.  Jerome  found  a  letter  the  most 
suitable  channel  for  the  development  of  his  thoughts;  he  delights 
in  throwing  an  entire  treatise  into  epistolary  form.  He  tells  us  him- 
self that  he  was  for  a  long  time  accustomed  to  write  every  day  a 
number   of  letters   of  the    ordinary   kind.     In   the   catalogue   of  his 

1  Ep.   124  ad  Avitum,  quid  cavendum  in  libris  nspl  äp/uiv :  Ib.,  xxii.  1059 — 1072. 

2  Ib.,  xxiii.    101  — 154..  3  Ib.,  xxiii.   155 — 182.  4  Ib.,  xxiii.    183—206. 
5  Ib.,   xxiii.   2TI — 338.               6  Ib.,  xxiii.   355 — 396. 

7  Ib.,  xxiii.  397 — 456.  8  Ib.,  xxiii.  457 — 492. 

•  Ib.,  xxiii.  339 — 352.  10  Ib.,  xxiii.  495 — 590. 

Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  3° 


466  SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

works  *  drawn  up  in  392  he  mentions  some  letters  that  for  one  reason 
or  another  appeared  important  to  him  :  Ad  Heliodorum  exhortatoriam 
(epistolam),  De  Seraphim,  and  others.  He  also  mentions  two  collec- 
tions of  his  letters:  Epistolarum  ad  diversos  librum  unum,  Ad  Mar- 
cellam  epistolarum  librum  unum,  and  adds:  Epistolarum  autem  ad 
Paulam  et  Eustochium,  quia  quotidie  scribuntur,  incertus  est  numerus. 
We  possess  at  present  about  one  hundred  and  twenty  letters  of 
Jerome.  They  cover  a  period  of  a  half  century  and  are  a  mirror  of 
his  varied  life,  being  directed  to  persons  of  all  sorts  and  conditions 
and  dealing  with  widely  divergent  matters ;  they  are  also  an  accurate 
mirror  of  manners  and  events  of  Roman  life  in  that  period.  It  is 
worthy  of  note  that  while  many  of  our  Saint's  writings  betray  a 
hurried  composition  amid  distracting  occupations,  several  of  his  letters 
were  evidently  written  with  great  care;  some  of  them,  especially 
those  of  his  youthful  period,  were  no  doubt  written  for  effect.  It  is 
in  his  letters  that  he  exhibits  most  fully  his  many  literary  gifts:  his 
sense  of  beauty  and  elegance,  his  originality  and  vigor  of  expression, 
in  a  word  his  skill  in  bold  and  warm  coloring.  We  have  already 
mentioned  (see  no.  5  and  6)  two  special  groups  of  his  letters:  ex- 
egetical  and  necrological  in  contents.  We  may  refer  here  briefly  to 
a  series  of  letters  that  recommend  the  ascetic  life,  or  aim  at  the 
guidance  of  those  who  have  adopted  it.  Many  of  them  were  originally 
intended  for  a  wider  circle  of  readers  than  was  represented  by  their 
immediate  recipients.  In  this  circle  of  similarly  minded  contemporaries 
they  met  not  only  with  approval  but  with  admiration,  and  have  ever 
since  been  looked  on  as  most  precious  gems  of  works  in  the  literature 
of  ecclesiastical  piety.  Among  them  are  the  Ep.  14 2  in  which  he 
beseeches  his  intimate  friend  Heliodorus  to  go  back  to  the  desert 
of  Chalcis  that  he  had  abandoned ;  Ep.  22 3  in  which  he  exhorts 
Eustochium  to  remain  loyal  and  courageous  in  her  pursuit  of  the 
ideals  of  a  virginal  spouse  of  God;  Ep.  52*  in  which  he  replies  to 
the  request  of  the  young  priest  Nepotian,  and  instructs  him  in  the 
way  of  acquiring  and  preserving  that  sanctity  of  life  which  became 
his  state.  We  may  add  those  letters  in  which  after  the  death  of 
Paula  (Jan.  26.,  404)  he  translated  the  monastic  rule  of  St.  Pachomius 
and  some  letters  of  Pachomius  and  Theodorus 5.  —  It  was  again  the 
good  fortune  of  Dom  Morin  to  discover  certain  homilies  of  St.  Jerome, 
and  to  silence  all  opposition  to  their  genuineness.  He  published 
in  1897  fifty-nine  homilies  on  the  Psalms,  ten  on  the  Gospel  of 
St.  Mark,  and  ten  on  other  subjects;  the  preface  to  his  edition  of 
these  homilies  describes  the  discovery  of  another  hitherto  unknown 
series  of  homilies  on  the  Psalms.    The  newly  published  homilies  are 

1  De  viris  ill.,  c.  135.  2  Migne,  PL.,  xxii.  347—355. 

8  lb.,  xxii.  394—425.  *  Ib.,  xxii.   527—540. 

6  Ib.,  xxiii.  61  — 100;  cf.  §  64,  2   3. 


§    93-      ST-  JEROME.  467 

not  finished  works  destined  for  publicity,  but  improvised  discourses, 
probably  sermons  of  the  year  401,  either  delivered  on  Sundays  or  on 
week  days  in  presence  of  his  monks,  and  taken  down  by  his  hearers. 
This  serves  to  modify  a  certain  disappointment  caused  by  the  reading 
of  these  homilies;  some  of  them,  however,  contain  passages  of  great 
oratorical  perfection. 

9.  JEROME  AS  A  SCHOLAR.  —  He  is  one  of  those  Fathers  honored 
by  the  Church  with  the  title  of  Doctor,  and  in  so  far  as  this  title 
stands,  among  other  things,  for  a  recognition  of  rare  erudition,  there 
is  scarcely  one  among  the  Fathers  to  whom  it  is  given  with  more 
justice.  During  his  own  life -time  he  was  hailed  as  the  greatest 
polyhistor  of  the  age,  Orosius  assures  us 1  that  the  entire  West 
thirsts  for  the  words  of  the  priest  of  Bethlehem  as  the  dry  fleece 
thirsts  for  the  dew  of  heaven;  John  Cassian  tells  us2  that  his  writ- 
ings shine  in  the  Christian  world  like  the  stars  of  the  firmament. 
Sulpicius  Severus  says3  that  there  is  no  other  writer  so  well-versed 
in  Greek,  Latin,  and  Hebrew  learning;  he  has  no  rival  in  any  branch 
of  knowledge:  ut  se  illi  in  omni  scientia  nemo  audeat  comparare. 
Augustine  is  witness4  that  Jerome  had  read  all  or  nearly  all  (omnes 
vel  paene  omnes)  previous  theological  writers  of  the  East  and  West. 
While  he  was  deservedly  recognized  as  among  the  first  in  every 
branch  of  theology,  he  was  held  by  all  to  be  pre-eminent  in  the 
biblical  sciences.  They  were  his  especial  delight,  and  in  this  depart- 
ment he  produced  his  greatest  works.  Even  to-day,  he  deserves 
our  sincere  admiration  as  a  capable  exegete,  or  rather  a  skilful 
philologist,  a  trained  critic,  and  a  translator  of  genius.  No  other 
Latin  writer  of  his  time  was  so  well  acquainted  with  Greek,  and  he 
stands  alone  among  his  contemporaries  in  his  knowledge  of  the  Old 
Testament  languages.  It  is  not  hard  to  pick  flaws  in  his  knowledge 
of  Hebrew,  since  he  esteemed  too  highly  the  Jewish  or  Rabbinical 
traditions  of  his  time,  but  it  is  also  unjust  to  apply  our  modern 
criteria  to  the  conditions  of  his  day.  A  simply  irresistible  proof  of 
his  skill  and  readiness  in  the  use  of  Hebrew  is  found  in  his  own 
narrative  of  the  translation  of  the  book  of  Tobias  from  Aramaic  into 
Latin  in  the  year  405  :  «Since  Chaldaic  (Aramaic)  is  close  akin  to 
the  Hebrew,  I  sought  out  a  scholar  who  knew  both  languages  well 
(no  doubt  a  Jewish  rabbi),  and  with  severe  labor  I  dictated  in  Latin 
during  one  day  to  a  hired  tachygrapher  what  that  scholar  had  dictated 
to  me  in  Hebrew»  5.  Nor  was  he  entirely  unacquainted  with  Aramaic. 
Several  years  earlier  when  occupied  with  the  translation  of  Daniel 
(ca.  391),  he  had  devoted  much  time  to  the  study  of  Aramaic;  he 
was   able  to  describe6  the  result  of  his  hard  labor  in   the   following 

1  Liber  apol.  contra  Pelag.,  c.  4.  2  De  incarnatione,  vii.  26. 

3  Dial.  i.  8.  4  Contra  Iulianum,  i.   7,   34. 

5  Praef.  in  lib.  Tob.  6  Praef.   in  lib.  Dan. 

30* 


^68  SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

words:  «Even  to  this  day  I  can  read  and  understand  Chaldaic  better 
than  I  can  pronounce  it.»  In  a  word,  the  philological  attainments 
of  St.  Jerome  were  such  as  to  indicate  him,  and  him  alone  among 
all  the  Christian  savants  of  his  time,  as  the  one  man  prepared  for 
and  called  to  a  task  at  once  so  important  and  so  difficult  as  a 
translation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

10.   JEROME   AS   WITNESS   TO   THE   FAITH   OF   THE   CHURCH.  —  He 
is  not  only  a  miracle  of  learning,  but  also  a  pillar  of  the  true  faith. 
Cassian  had  already  called  him1  «a  man  of  most  extensive  knowledge 
and  of  thoroughly  approved  and  pure  doctrine».     Sulpicius  Severus 
says2:   «The  heretics  hate  him  because  he  ceases  not  from  attacking 
them,    and    ecclesiastics   hate   him    because   he   is   inimical    to   their 
way  of  life  and  their  vices  (see  no.  2).     But    all    good    men   admire 
and  love  him ;  for  those  who  call  him  a  heretic,  are  bereft  of  reason 
(insani  sunt).     I  speak  the  truth  when   I   say:    the   thoughts   of  this 
man  are  Catholic,  his  teaching  is  sound.»    Severus  hints  that  Jerome 
was  not  spared  from  charges  of  heresy;    he   has   in    mind,    perhaps, 
the    accusation   of  Origenism   made  against  him  by  Rufinus.     There 
is    no    reason    to   suspect    the  judgment   of  Cassian    because   of  his 
own   leaning   towards  Semipelagianism.     The   occasional   expressions 
of  St.  Jerome   on   the  priority   of  grace  or   on  free-will  are  in  some 
details  inexact;  but  in  his  commentary  on  Jeremias,  composed  during 
the  Pelagian  controversy  and  one  of  his  maturest  writings,  he  often 
presupposes,  apparently  at  least,  the  necessity  of  gratia  praeveniens; 
thus,  on  Jer.  xviii.  1  ff. :  Ita  libertas  arbitrii  reservanda  est,  ut  in  omni- 
bus excellat  gratia  largitoris ;    at  xxiv.   1  ff. :    Non   solum   opera,    sed 
et  voluntas  nostra  Dei  nititur  auxilio;    at  xxxi.    18 — 19:    Hoc  ipsum 
quod  agimus  poenitentiam,  nisi  nos  Dominus  ante  converterit,  nequa- 
quam   implere   valemus,    and   this   remark   throws   light   on  what  he 
says  at  iii.  21 — 22:    Quamvis   enim    propria   voluntate   ad  Dominum 
revertamur,    tarnen    nisi   ille   nos  traxerit  et  cupiditatem  nostram  suo 
roboraverit  praesidio,  salvi  esse  non  poterimus.    The  Pelagian  Julianus 
admitted3   that   the    «Dialogue    against    the   Pelagians»    was    written 
«with  marvellous  elegance»  :  mir  a  venustate,  and  the  chronicler  Hyda- 
tius4  accounts  it  a  special  merit    of  the   author   that   at   the  end  of 
his  life   «he  broke  in  pieces  the  sect  of  the  Pelagians  together  with 
its  author,  by  means  of  the  steel  hammer  of  truth».     It  is  true,    of 
course,  that  the  theological  contents  of  the  polemic  of  Jerome  are  far 
inferior  to  those  of  the  anti-Pelagian  writings  of  Augustine,  as  in  general 
the  bishop  of  Hippo    is  far  superior  to    the   priest    of  Bethlehem   in 
depth  and  solidity  and  independence  of  thought;  the  gift  of  specula- 
tion in  Jerome  is  by  no  means  as  prominent   as   his   vast    erudition. 
Hence,    he   has  not  influenced   the  development   of  theology  in  the 

1  De  incarnatione,  vii.  26.  2  Dial.   i.   9,  4   5. 

3  Aug.,  Opus  imperfectum  contra  Iulianum,  iv.   88.  4  Chron.  ad  a    415. 


§    93-      ST.   JEROME.  469 

same  measure  as  St.  Augustine.  Among  the  testimonia  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church  that  are  scattered  through  his  works,  his  defence 
of  the  Catholic  rule  of  faith  has  always  been  praised.  The  doctrinal 
authority  of  the  Church  as  a  proximate  source  of  Christian  faith, 
especially  the  magisterium  of  the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  had  no  more 
energetic  defenders  among  the  Christians  of  antiquity.  About  378  he 
wrote  from  the  desert  of  Chalcis  to  Pope  Damasus:  «While  the  sons 
of  iniquity  have  consumed  their  inheritance,  it  is  only  among  you 
(apud  vos  solos)  that  the  inheritance  of  the  Fathers  has  been  pre- 
served intact  .  .  .  while  I  follow  in  the  first  place  only  Christ  I  keep 
in  communion  with  your  Holiness  i.  e.  with  the  see  of  Peter.  I  know 
that  upon  this  rock  the  Church  is  established  .  .  .  Therefore  decide, 
I  implore  and  conjure  you,  and  we  shall  unhesitatingly  confess  three 
hypostases.  If  you  will  so  order,  let  a  Creed  be  drawn  up  in  place 
of  the  Nicene,  and  we  of  the  true  faith  shall  confess  it  in  terms 
similar  to  those  of  the  Arians  *. »  Also  in  other  and  later  letters  he 
emphasizes  again  and  again  the  fact  that  the  faith  of  the  Roman 
Church,  long  since  praised  by  St.  Paul,  must  always  be  held  as  the 
supreme  rule  and  decisive  standard  of  Christian  faith2.  —  In  his 
commentaries  he  insists  that  Scripture  must  be  understood  in,  the 
sense  of  the  Church.  The  sense  which  the  Church  teaches  is  the 
sense  intended  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  author  of  Scripture.  Whoever 
interprets  Scripture  against  the  sense  of  the  Church  or  the  intention 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  a  heretic;  interpreted  in  such  a  way,  the 
Gospel  of  Christ  becomes  a  gospel  of  man  or  rather  of  Satan 3.  Out- 
side the  Church  there  is  no  salvation.  «Whoever  eats  the  Lamb 
outside  that  house,  is  unholy  (profanus).  Whoever  is  not  in  the  Ark 
of  Noah,  will  perish  in  the  flood»4.  «Whoever  is  saved,  is  saved  in 
the  Church»  5.  «Whoever  is  outside  the  Church  of  the  Lord,  cannot 
be  pure»  6.  It  is  owing  to  this  conviction  that  the  entire  life  of  Je- 
rome was  consumed  in  endless  conflicts  with  the  enemies  of  the 
Church.  «I  have  never  spared  heretics»,  he  wrote  not  long  before 
his  death,  «but  have  always  held  with  great  zeal  that  the  enemies 
of  the  Church  were  also  my  enemies»  7. 

1 1 .  JEROME  AS  MASTER  OF  CHRISTIAN  PROSE.  —  In  order  not  to 
omit  all  reference  to  the  literary  character  of  the  writings  of  Jerome, 
it  may  be  said  that,  with  the  exception  of  Lactantius,  no  Christian 
prose-writer  of  antiquity  laid  so  much  stress  on  formal  elegance  as 
our  Saint ;  and  no  Christian  writer,  with  the  exception  of  Tertullian, 
stamped  so  strongly  upon  his  writings  his  own  very  original  per- 
sonality.    None   of  the  Christian  Latin   writers   has   exercised,    even 

1  Ep.  15,  1  24;  cf.  16,  2.  2  Ep.  46,  11;  63,  2;  130,  16. 

3  Comm.  in  Gal.,  i.    11 — 12;  v.  19 — 21;   in  Mich.,  i.    10  ff. ;    in  Ier.,  xxix.  8 — 9. 

4  Ep.    15,  2.              5  In  Ioel,  iii.  iff.              6  In  Ezech.,  vii.    19. 
7  Dial,   contra  Pelag.,  praef. 


47o 


SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 


approximately,  so  marked  an  influence  on  the  ecclesiastical  Latinity 
of  a  later  period ;  in  this  respect  his  translation  of  the  Bible  and 
many  of  his  letters  were  authoritative.  He  has  been  rightly  called 
the  master  of  Christian  prose  for  all  later  centuries.  In  his  style 
and  diction,  it  is  the  rhetorician  that  stands  out  most  prominently, 
but  a  rhetorician  highly  gifted  by  nature  and  thoroughly  trained  in 
good  schools.  It  must  be  admitted  that  his  rhetorical  culture  is  not 
all  made  up  of  excellencies;  his  earlier  writings  especially  betray 
a  love  of  florid  language,  a  tendency  to  hyperbole  and  to  the  de- 
clamatory and  sensational. 

12.  complete  editions,  translations.  —  The  first  complete  edition 
of  St.  Jerome  was  brought  out  by  D.  Erasmus,  Basel,  151 6 — 1520,  9  vols. 
Other  editions  were  brought  out  by  Marianus  Victorius,  bishop  of  Rieti,  Rome, 
1565 — 1572,  9  vols.;  by  the  Benedictines  J.  Martianay  and  A.  Pouget, 
Paris,  1693 — 1706,  5  vols. ;  D.  Vallarsi,  Verona,  1734 — 1742,  11  vols.,  and 
Venice,  1766 — 1772,  11  vols,  (reprinted  in  Migne ,  PL.,  xxii — xxx). 
A.  Reifferscheid  (Bibl.  Patr.  lat.  Ital.,  i.  66;  cf.  ib.,  pp.  90  278)  says  of  the 
Vallarsi  edition:  «Although  the  revision  of  the  Benedictine  edition  by 
Vallarsi  and  his  confreres  has  often  been  praised ,  the  text  of  St.  Jerome 
still  remains  a  neglected  text,  and  the  manuscript  tradition  is  but  imper- 
fectly known.»  —  Some  writings  of  St.  Jerome  were  translated  into  Greek 
by  his  friend  Sophronius  (De  viris  ill.,  c.  134).  Selections  from  his  writings 
were  translated  into  German  by  P.  Leipelt,  Kempten,  1872  — 1874,  2  vols. 
(Bibl.  der  Kirchenväter).  B.  Matougues ,  (Euvres  de  St.  Jerome,  Paris, 
1858  (xxxii  and  683  pp.),  offers  a  French  translation  of  copious  excerpts, 
and  even  whole  works.  A  still  larger  selection  is  found  in  the  English 
translation  of  W.  H.  Fremantlc,  in  Select  Library  of  the  Nicene  and  Post- 
Nicene  Fathers  of  the  Christian  Church,  series  II,  vol.  vi,  New  York,  1893. 

13.  editions,  versions,  and  recensions  of  separate  works.  — 
Translations  of  the  Scripture :  A  critical  edition  of  St.  Jerome's  revision  of 
the  New  Testament  was  undertaken  by  Wordsivorth  and  White:  Novum 
Testamentum  D.  N.  Iesu  Christi  latine  secundum  editionem  S.  Hieronymi. 
Ad  codicum  mss.  fidem  rec.  J.  Wordsworth  et  H.  J.  White,  part  I,  Quat- 
tuor  Evangelia,  Oxford,  1889— 1898.  For  the  Hieronymian  version  of  the 
Greek  text  of  Job  cf.  P.  de  Lagarde ,  Mitteilungen,  Göttingen,  1887,  ii. 
189—237,  and  C.  P.  Caspari,  Das  Buch  Hiob  (i.  1  to  xxxviii.  16)  in  Hiero- 
nymus'  Übersetzung  aus  der  alexandrinischen  Version  nach  einer  St.  Gallener 
Handschrift  saec.  viii,  Christiania,  1893.  The  best  edition  of  S.  Jerome's 
version  of  the  Psalms,  not  in  ecclesiastical  use  as  described  above,  is  that 
of  Lagarde,  Psalterium  iuxta  Hebraeos  Hieronymi  e  recognitione  Pauli 
de  Lagarde,  Leipzig,  1874.  Cf.  de  Lagarde,  Probe  einer  neuen  x<Vusgabe 
der  lateinischen  Übersetzungen  des  Alten  Testaments,  Göttingen,  1885 
(contains  Psalms  i— xvii,  according  to  twenty-six  text-witnesses.  For  other 
works  on  the  Hieronymian  versions  of  the  Bible  and  the  actual  Vulgate 
the  reader  is  referred  to  the  current  manuals  of  Introduction  to  Biblical 
Studies;  cf.  P.  Corssen ,  in  Jahresbericht  über  die  Fortschritte  der  klass. 
Altertumswissenschaft  (1899),  ci.  i— 83  :  «Bericht  über  die  lateinischen  Bibel- 
übersetzungen». —  Other  exegetical  labors:  Onomastica  sacra.  P.  de  La- 
garde (ed.  Gott.,  1870)  alterum  ed.,  Gott.,  1887,  pp.  25—116:  Hieronymi 
Über  interpretations  hebraicorum  nominum;  pp.  117— 190:  Hieronymi  de 
situ  et  nommibus  locorum  hebraicorum  liber.  Concerning  the  last  work  see 
M.  Spanier,    Exegetische  Beiträge   zu  Hieronymus'  Onomastikon,    Magde- 


§    93-      ST-   JEROME.  471 

burg,  1896;  Id.,  Nachträge  und  Berichtigungen  (to  the  previous  essay), 
ib.,  1898.  E.  Klostermann,  Eusebius'  Schrift  irepl  twv  totuxwv  dvofxaxtov, 
pp.  16 — 2i,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  new  series,  viii.  2b.  Hiero- 
nymi  Quaestiones  hebraicae  in  libro  Geneseos  e  recognitione  Pauli  de  La- 
gar  de ,  Leipzig,  1868.  S.  Hieronymi  presb.  qui  deperditi  hactenus  puta- 
bantur  commentarioli  in  Psalmos,  ed.  G.  Morin,  Maredsous,  1895  (Anecdota 
Maredsolana,  iii.  1).  S.  Hieronymi  Stridonensis  presbyteri  tractatus  contra 
Origenem  de  visione  Isaiae  (vi.  1  f.) ,  quern  nunc  primum  ex  codd.  mss. 
Casinensibus  A.  M.  Amelli  in  lucem  edidit  et  illustravit,  Montecassino, 
1 90 1 ;  Id.,  in  Studi  Religiosi  (1901),  i.  193 — 204.  The  authorship  of  Jerome, 
but  at  a  later  date,  is  defended  by  G.  Morin,  in  Revue  d'hist.  eccles.  (1901), 
ii.  810 — 827,  against  G.  Mercati,  in  Revue  Biblique  (1901),  x.  385 — 392; 
cf.  the  reply  of  Morin,  ib.  (1897),  iii.  164 — 173.  See  also  J.  Lataix,  Le 
commentaire  de  St.  Jerome  sur  Daniel ,  in  Revue  d'hist.  et  de  litter,  reli- 
gieuses  (1897),  ii.  164 — 173  268 — 277.  G.  Morin,  Sancti  Hieronymi  pres- 
byteri tractatus  sive  homiliae  in  Psalmos  quatuordecim  (Anecdota  Mared- 
solana, 1903,  iii.  3).  —  The  commentary  on  the  Apocalypse  of  the  Donatist 
Tichonius,  foundation  and  source  of  the  commentary  of  Jerome,  has  perished, 
but  it  might  be  reconstructed  in  large  measure  from  the  works  of  later 
commentators  on  whom  Tichonius  exercised  a  great  influence,  particularly 
from  the  commentary  of  Beatus  of  Libana,  composed  about  776.  See 
Haussleiter ,  §  58,  1,  and  the  important  remarks  of  F.  Ramsay,  Le  com- 
mentaire de  l'Apocalypse  par  Beatus  de  Libana,  in  Revue  d'histoire  et  de 
litterature  religieuses  (1902),  vii.  419—447.  For  other  works  of  Tichonius 
see  Gennad.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  18.  There  is  still  extant  Tichonii  Afri  liber 
de  septem  regulis  {Migne,  PL.,  xviii.  15 — 66);  it  contains  seven  rules  for 
the  explanation  of  passages  in  the  Scripture  made  difficult  by  the  figurative 
speech  of  the  sacred  writer.  These  rules  might  have  perished,  had  they  not 
been  incorporated  by  St.  Augustine  into  his  work  De  doctrina  Christiana, 
iii.  30 — 37 :  Migne,  xxxiv.  81 — 90.  For  a  critical  edition  see  F.  C.  Burkitt, 
Cambridge,  1894,  in  Texts  and  Studies,  iii.  1.  T.  Hahn,  Tyconius-Studien, 
Leipzig,  1900,  in  Studien  zur  Gesch.  der  Theol.  und  der  Kirche,  vi.  2. 
A.  B.  Sharpe ,  Tychonius  and  St.  Augustin,  in  Dublin  Review  (1903), 
pp.  64 — 72.  G.  Morin  published,  in  Rev.  Bened.  (1903),  xx.  225  —  236, 
a  little  work  entitled  De  monogrammate  (Apoc.  xiii.  18),  in  some  way 
connected  with  the  treatment  of  the  commentary  on  the  Apocalypse  of 
Victorinus  of  Pettau  by  St.  Jerome  (§  58,  1).  As  to  the  author  of  the  pseudo- 
Hieronymian  Quaestiones  Hebraicae  in  libros  Regum  et  in  libros  Para- 
lipomenon  (Ib.,  xxiii.  1329— 1402)  cf.  S.  Berger ,  Quam  notitiam  linguae 
hebraicae  habuerint  christiani  medii  aevi  temporibus  in  Gallia  (These), 
Nancy,  1893,  pp.  1 — 4.  It  seems  that  the  pseudo-Hieronymian  Expositio 
interlinearis  libri  Job  (Ib.,  xxiii.  1407 — 1470)  was  composed  by  the  priest 
Philippus,  an  optimus  auditor  Hieronymi  [Gennad.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  62),  and 
later  worked  over  and  enlarged  by  Venerable  Bede ;  cf.  O.  Zockler,  Hiero- 
nymus,  Gotha,  1865,  p.  471.  For  the  spurious  Commentarii  in  epistolas 
S.  Pauli  (Ib.,  xxx.  645 — 902)  cf.  §  94,  16.  The  exegetical  labors  of 
St.  Jerome  are  discussed  by  M.  Rahmer ,  Die  hebräischen  Traditionen  in 
den  Werken  des  Hieronymus,  durch  eine  Vergleichung  mit  den  jüdischen 
Quellen  kritisch  beleuchtet,  i:  Die  «Quaestiones  in  Genesin»,  Breslau,  1861. 
The  second  part  of  this  work,  on  the  «commentaries»,  did  not  get  beyond 
those  to  Osee  and  Joel,  and  appeared  in  Monatschrift  f.  Geschichte  und 
Wissenschaft  des  Judentums  1865  1867  1868  1898.  Since  then  M.  Rahmer 
has  again  taken  up  his  labors:  Die  hebr.  Traditionen,  etc.  Die  commen- 
tarii zu  den  12  kleinen  Propheten,  first  and  second  half,  in  two  fascicules, 
Berlin,  1902.     C.  Siegfried ,   Die  Aussprache   des  Hebräischen   bei  Hiero- 


472 


SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 


nymus,  in  Zeitschr.  für  die  alttestamentl.  Wissensch.  (1884),  iv.  34—83. 
W.  Nowack,  Die  Bedeutung  des  Hieronymus  für  die  alttestamentl.  Text- 
kritik, Göttingen,  1875.  W.  Bacher,  Eine  angebliche  Lücke  im  hebr. 
Wissen  des  Hieronymus,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  die  alttestamentl.  Wissensch.  (1902), 
pp.  114 — 116.  y.  A.  Mäklers  Gesammelte  Schriften  und  Aufsätze,  heraus- 
gegeben von  y.  J.  y.  Döllinger  (Ratisbon,  1839— 1840),  i.  1 — 18:  Hiero- 
nymus und  Augustinus  im  Streit  über  Gal.  ii.  14.  Cf.  Fr.  Overbeck,  Über 
die  Auffassung  des  Streites  des  Paulus  mit  Petrus  in  Antiochien  (Gal.  ii. 
11  ff.)  bei  den  Kirchenvätern  (Progr.),  Basel,  1877.  A.  Röhrich,  Essai  sur 
St.  Jerome  exegete  (These),  Geneva,  1891.  L.Sanders,  Etudes  sur  St.  Jdröme, 
sa  doctrine  touchant  l'inspiration  des  livres  saints  et  leur  veracite,  l'auto- 
rite  des  deuterocanoniques,  la  distinction  entre  l'episcopat  et  le  presbyterat, 
l'orige'nisme,  Paris,  1903.  G.  Hoberg,  De  sancti  Hieronymi  ratione  inter- 
pretandi,  Freiburg  i.  Br.,  1903.  y.  van  den  Gheyn,  Saint  Jerome,  in  Dic- 
tionnaire  de  la  Bible,  Paris,   1903,  iii.   1305 — 13 16. 

14.     EDITIONS     AND    RECENSIONS     OF     SEPARATE    WORKS     (CONTINUED).    — 

Historical  works:  Eusebi  Chronicorum  libri  duo,  ed.  A.  Schoene ,  Berlin, 
1866 — 1875,  v°l-  n:  Hieronymi  versionem  e  libris  manuscriptis  recensuit 
A.  Schoene.  Cf.  §  62,  7.  Hieronymi  chronicorum  codicis  Floriacensis  frag- 
menta  Leidensia,  Parisina,  Vaticana  phototypice  edita.  Praefatus  est 
L.  Traube,  Leyden,  1902.  A.  Schoene ,  Die  Weltchronik  des  Eusebius  in 
ihrer  Bearbeitung  durch  Hieronymus,  Berlin,  1900.  For  De  viris  ill.  see 
§  2,  1.  y.  H.  Reinkens,  Die  Einsiedler  des  hl.  Hieronymus  in  freier  Be- 
arbeitung dargestellt,  Schaffhausen,  1864  (a  re-arrangement  of  the  lives  of 
Paul,  Hilarion  and  Malchus,  also  the  necrologies  of  Marcella,  Paula,  and 
Fabiola.  The  Vita  Pauli  monachi  is  the  source  of  all  other  accounts  of 
Paul  of  Thebes;  cf.  y.  Bidez ,  in  the  introduction  to  his  edition  of  two 
Greek  lives  of  St.  Paul,  Ghent,  1900.  F.  Nau,  Le  texte  grec  original  de 
la  vie  de  St.  Paul  de  Thebes,  in  Analecta  Bolland.  (1901),  xx.  121— 157; 
against  his  views  A.  M.  Kugener,  S.  Jerome  et  la  vie  de  Paul  de  Thebes, 
in  Byzant.  Zeitschr.  (1902),  xi.  513—517.  For  the  Vita  Beati  Hilarionis, 
see  O.  Zöckler ,  in  Neue  Jahrb.  f.  deutsche  Theol.  (1894),  iii.  146—178. 
Cf.  also  §  66,  5.  For  the  Vita  Malchi  see  P.  van  den  Ven,  St.  Jerome  et 
la  vie  du  moine  Malchus  le  Captif,  Louvain,  1901.  —  Marty rologium 
Hieronymianum  ad  fidem  codicum  adiectis  prolegomenis  ediderunt  y.  B. 
de  Rossi  et  L.  Duchesne  (Acta  SS.  Nov.  ii),  Paris,  1894.  Concerning  this 
martyrology  cf.  H  A  che  lis ,  Die  Martyrologien ,  Berlin,  1900,  pp.  71  ff. 
H.  Grisar,  in  Analecta  Romana,  Rome,  1899,  i.  243—258,  and  y.  Chap- 
man, in  Revue  Benedictine  (1903),  xx.  285  —  291.  —  Dogmatico-polemical 
works:  For  the  date  of  composition  of  Altercatio  Luciferiani  et  orthodoxi 
see  G.  Grützmacher,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  Kirchengesch.  (1901),  xxi.  1—8  (written 
«about  382»).  The  Adversus  Helvidium  is  also  in  H.  Hurler ,  SS.  Patr. 
opusc.  sei.,  ser.  I,  p.  xii.  A  minute  analysis  of  this  work,  with  a  sensible 
appreciation  of  its  merit,  is  given  by  F.  A.  v.  Lehner 3  Die  Marienver- 
ehrung in  den  ersten  Jahrhunderten,  2.  ed.,  pp.  104— 112.  W.  Haller,  Jovi- 
nianus,  die  Fragmente  seiner  Schriften,  die  Quellen  zu  seiner  Geschichte, 
sein  Leben  und  seine  Lehre,  Leipzig,  1897,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen, 
xvn,  new  series,  ii.  2.  E.  Gaebel,  Jovinianus  und  seine  Ansicht  vom  Ver- 
hältnis der  Wiedergeborenen  zur  Sünde  (Progr.),  Posen,  1901.  W.Schmidt, 
Vigilantius,  Münster,  i860.  G.  Nijhoff,  Vigilantius  (Diss,  inaug.),  Groningen, 
1897.  H  Reville,  Vigilance  de  Calagurris.  Un  chapitre  de  l'histoire  de 
l'ascetisme  monastique,  Paris,  1902.  The  pseudo-Hieronymian  Indiculus 
de  haeresibus  was  last  edited  by  Fr.  Oehler  (Corpus  haereseologicum, 
Berlin,  1856,  i.  281—300;  cf.  xii— xiv).  —  Letters  and  homilies:  For 
Lp.  s3  ad  Paulam  see  §  39,  2.     The  Ep.  46  (according  the  title:   Paulae 


§    94«      ST-    AUGUSTINE.  473 

et  Eustochii  ep.),  ad  Marcellam,  de  Sanctis  locis,  also  in  Itinera  Hierc- 
solymitana  et  descriptiones  Terrae  Sanctae,  edd.  T.  Toiler  et  A.  Molinier, 
Geneva,  1879,  i.  41 — 4,7;  the  Peregrinatio  S.  Paulae  auctore  S.  Hiero- 
nymo  (Ib.,  pp.  27 — 40)  is  taken  from  Ep.  108,  ad  Eustochium  (epitaphium 
Paulae  matris).  C.  Paucker  considers  genuine,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  d.  Österreich. 
Gymnasien  (1880),  xxxi.  891 — 895,  the  two  letters  Ad  amicum  aegrotum, 
rejected  as  spurious  by  former  editors  (Migne,  PL.,  xxx.  61 — 104).  The 
genuineness  of  the  Ep.  ad  Praesidium  de  cereo  paschali  (Ib..  xxx.  182 — 188) 
is  defended  by  Dom  Morin,  in  Revue  Benedictine  (1891),  viii.  20 — 27; 
(1892),  ix.  392 — 397.  For  the  spurious  letter  or  treatise  De  septem  ordi- 
nibus  ecclesiae  (lb.,  xxx.  148 — 162)  see  §  in,  3.  —  S.  Hieronymi  epi- 
stolae  selectae,  in  Hurler,  SS.  Patr.  opusc.  sei.  (series  I),  xi.  S.  Ff  Amico, 
Girolamo  di  Stridone  e  le  sue  epistole,  studio  letterario,  Acireale,  1902. 
S.  Hieronymi  presb.  tractatus  sive  homiliae  in  Psalmos,  in  Marci  Evan- 
gelium aliaque  varia  argumenta,  ed.  G.  Morin,  Maredsous,  1897,  in  Anec- 
dota  Maredsolana,  iii.  2 ;  cf.  Morin,  in  Revue  d'histoire  et  de  litter,  relig. 
(1896),  i.  393—434;  Id.,  Quatorze  nouveaux  discours  inedits  de  St.  Jerome, 
in  Revue  Bened.  (1902),  xix.   113 — 144. 

15.  works  on  saint  jerome.  —  F.  Z.  Collombet,  Histoire  de  St.  Jerome, 
pere  de  l'eglise  au  IVe  siecle;  sa  vie,  ses  ecrits  et  ses  doctrines,  Paris  et 
Lyons,  1844,  2  vols.  This  work  was  translated  into  German  by  Fr.  Laudiert 
and  A.  Knoll,  Rottweil,  1846 — 1848,  2  vols.  O.  Zöckler,  Hieronymus.  Sein 
Leben  und  Wirken  aus  seinen  Schriften  dargestellt,  Gotha,  1865.  A.  Thierry, 
St.  Jerome,  la  societe  chretienne  ä  Rome  et  l'emigration  romaine  en  Terre- 
Sainte,  Paris,  1867,  2  vols.,  2.  ed.,  1875,  3-  eclv  1876.  C.  Martin,  Life 
of  Saint  Jerome,  London,  1888.  Largent,  Saint  Je'röme,  Paris,  1898  (Les 
Saints).  G.  Grützmacher ,  Hieronymus.  Eine  biographische  Studie  zur 
alten  Kirchengeschichte.  I.  Sein  Leben  und  seine  Schriften  bis  zum  Jahre 
385,  Leipzig,  1901,  in  Studien  zur  Geschichte  der  Theol.  und  der  Kirche, 
vi.  3.  L.  Sanders,  Etudes  sur  Saint  Jerome,  Paris,  1903.  —  Divum  Hiero- 
nymum  oppido  Stridonis  in  regione  interamna  (Muraköz)  Hungariae  anno 
331  p.  Chr.  natum  esse  propugnat  J.  Dankö,  Mainz,  1874.  For  the  site 
of  Stridon  cf.  F.  Bulic,  in  Festchrift  f.  O.  Benndorf,  Vienna,  1898,  pp.  276 
to  280.  Hieronymus  quos  noverit  scriptores  et  ex  quibus  hauserit,  scripsit 
Aem.  Luebeck,  Leipzig,  1872  (by  scriptores  Luebeck  means  the  classical 
writers,  Greek  and  Latin).  C.  Paucker,  De  latinitate  beati  Hieronymi  ob- 
servationes  ad  nominum  verborumque  usum  pertinentes,  Berlin,  1870; 
editio  adiecto  indice  auctior,  1880.  H.  Goelzer,  Etude  lexicographique  et 
grammaticale  de  la  latinite  de  St.  Jerome  (These),  Paris,  1844  (xii  and 
472  pp.).  B.  Labanca,  Le  Idee  pedagogiche  di  S.  Girolamo,  Milan,  1901. 
Asenstorfer,  War  der  hl.  Hieronymus  Kardinal?  in  Theol.  prakt.  Quartal- 
schrift (1904),  pp.  976 — 977. 

§  94.    St.  Augustine. 

I.  HIS  PRE-BAPTISMAL  LIFE  (354 — 387).  —  Aurelius  Augustinus 
was  born  November  13.,  354,  at  Tagaste,  an  insignificant  town  of 
Numidia.  His  father,  Patricius,  one  of  the  respectable  men  of  the 
town,  was  a  heathen  and  became  a  Christian  only  a  short  while 
before  his  death  (371).  But  his  mother,  Monica,  came  from  a  Chris- 
tian family,  and  was  herself  a  model  of  Christian  virtue.  In  the 
first  nine  books  of  his  Confessions,  Augustine  himself  has  described 
(about  the  year  400)   his   intellectual    and    moral    development   from 


474 


SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 


his  earliest  childhood  to  the  death  of  his  mother  (387).  The  extra- 
ordinary capacity  of  the  boy  was  seen  already  in  the  school  of 
Tagaste.  His  father  intended  him  for  the  career  of  a  rhetorician, 
and  with  this  view  made  great  sacrifices  to  keep  him  in  the  schools, 
first  at  the  neighboring  Madaura  and  afterwards  (371)  at  the  university 
of  Carthage.  He  was  an  ardent  youth  and  very  susceptible  to  the 
impressions  of  the  senses;  consequently,  he  fell  into  a  loose  manner 
of  living.  Of  his  union  with  a  concubine  was  born  his  son  Adeodatus 
(372).  At  the  age  of  nineteen,  Augustine  was  deeply  moved  by 
reading  the  Hortensius  of  Cicero,  and  felt  himself  seized  with  a 
burning  love  for  the  immortal  beauty  of  wisdom  (373).  His  grateful 
admiration  for  the  work  of  Cicero  was  troubled  by  one  consideration : 
quod  nomen  Christi  non  erat  ibi1.  With  his  mother's  milk  he  had 
imbibed  the  consciousness  that  the  name  of  Christ  was  synonymous 
with  true  wisdom.  In  the  meantime  he  began  to  read  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  but  they  failed  to  please  him;  he  was  discontented  with 
their  style  and  diction;  as  yet  he  was  unable  to  appreciate  their  con- 
tents2. In  374,  he  joined  the  sect  of  the  Manichaeans,  attracted  by 
their  assertion  that,  while  Catholicism  proposes  to  humiliate  reason 
by  making  it  subject  to  faith,  Manichaeism,  on  the  contrary,  leads 
men  first  to  the  study  and  the  knowledge  of  truth :  nos  superstitione 
terreri  et  fidem  nobis  ante  rationem  imperari  .  .  .  se  autem  nullum 
premere  ad  fidem  nisi  prius  discussa  et  enodata  veritate3.  Monica 
wept  for  the  error  of  her  son  «more  bitterly  than  mothers  weep  for 
the  corporal  death  of  their  children»4.  A  bishop  consoled  her  with 
the  words:  fieri  non  potest  ut  filius  istarum  lacrymarum  pereat5. 
After  finishing  his  studies  at  Carthage,  Augustine  began  in  his  native 
town  of  Tagaste  his  career  as  a  teacher  of  rhetoric.  In  the  same 
year,  apparently,  he  went  up  to  Carthage,  where  greater  opportunities 
awaited  him.  His  abilities  as  a  teacher  of  rhetoric  were  recognized 
on  all  sides,  and  his  ambition  was  gratified  in  several  ways.  The  pro- 
consul Vindicianus  publicly  adjudged  him  the  prize  of  poetry,  and 
honored  him  thenceforth  with  his  friendship.  Gradually  he  ceased  to 
be  convinced  of  the  truth  of  Manichaeism.  The  study  of  astrology 
was  the  cause  of  grave  doubts;  and  on  the  other  hand,  he  was  shock- 
ed by  the  immorality  of  the  so-called  electi  among  the  Manichaeans. 
It  was  only  in  383  that  he  could  gratify  his  long-cherished  desire  to 
meet  Faustus  of  Milevi,  the  bishop  of  the  Manichaeans,  who  was 
looked  on  by  his  followers  as  an  oracle  of  wisdom.  But  Faustus 
was  not  only  unable  to  remove  the  doubts  of  Augustine,  he  betrayed 
himself  a  charlatan  ignorant  of  the  liberal  arts  and  especially  ignorant 
of  astrology.  The  spell  was  broken;  internally  at  least  Augustine  was 
no   longer   a  Manichaean.    Soon  after  this  event   he   left  Africa   and 

1  Conf.,  iii.  4,  8.  2  Ib§j  iii#  5>  9  3  De  utilit    credendi,  1.   2. 

4  Conf.,  iii.   11,    19.  &  lb.,  iii.    12.   21. 


§    94-      ST-    AUGUSTINE.  475 

journeyed  to  Italy.  After  a  few  months  spent  at  Rome,  he  obtained, 
through  the  good  offices  of  the  city-prefect  Symmachus,  a  chair  of 
rhetoric  in  the  city  of  Milan.  The  personality  of  its  bishop,  Am- 
brose, made  a  profound  impression  on  him,  and,  to  the  discourses 
of  the  bishop  he  owed  it  that  henceforth  many  of  his  prejudices 
against  Catholic  doctrine  began  to  disappear  (§  90,  1).  He  determined 
to  enrol  himself  among  the  catechumens:  statui  ergo  tamdiu  esse 
catechumenus  in  Catholica  ecclesia  mihi  a  parentibus  commendata, 
donee  aliquid  certi  eluceret  quo  cursum  dirigerem1.  Certain  Neo- 
platonist  treatises,  translated  into  Latin  by  Marius  Victorinus  (§  87,  8), 
contributed  to  diminish  the  power  of  his  evil  passions,  and  to  direct 
his  thoughts  to  higher  ideals.  The  splendor  of  divine  truth  began 
already  to  shine  for  him  from  the  pages  of  St.  Paul,  but  although 
the  dawn  had  broken  along  the  summit  of  his  intelligence,  a  long 
and  painful  conflict  was  going  on  in  the  depths  of  his  heart  between 
the  law  of  the  spirit  and  the  law  of  the  flesh.  One  day  (August,  386), 
while  deeply  troubled  in  spirit,  he  heard  a  mysterious  voice:  Tolle, 
lege;  tolle,  lege2.  He  took  up  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  and  his  eye 
rested  on  Romans  xiii.  13—14:  non  in  comessationibus  et  ebrieta- 
tibus.  ...  At  once  the  dart  of  divine  love  entered  his  heart3;  the 
bonds  of  human  love  were  broken;  all  doubts  ceased,  and  he  was 
filled  with  calm  and  peace.  He  gave  up  his  teaching,  and  in  the 
autumn  of  386  retired  with  his  mother  (who  had  followed  him  across 
the  sea),  his  son  Adeodatus  and  some  other  friends,  to  an  estate 
called  Cassiciacum  near  Milan.  Here  he  made  ready  for  the  reception 
of  baptism.  He  was  baptized  by  Ambrose  at  Milan,  during  the  night 
of  April  24.  —  25.,  387,  together  with  his  son  Adeodatus  and  his  friend 
Alypius.  A  few  months  later,  he  bade  adieu  to  Milan  and  set  out  for 
Africa.  Midway,  at  Ostia,  his  mother  closed  her  mortal  career.  As 
late  as  the  year  400  the  memory  of  her  death  still  plunged  him  into 
bitter-sweet  sorrow,  and  drew  from  him  touching  accents  of  praise 
and  gratitude;  had  not  the  dear  departed  mother  begotten  him  both 
for  earth  and  for  heaven?  «Me  parturivit  et  carne,  ut  in  hanc  tempo- 
ralem, et  corde,  ut  in  aeternam  lucem  renascerer4. 

2.  HIS  LIFE  AFTER  BAPTISM  (387 — 430).  —  His  mother's  death 
caused  a  delay  in  his  return  to  Africa.  He  spent  nearly  a  year  at 
Rome  in  learned  studies,  and  landed  at  Carthage  only  in  the  autumn 
of  388.  For  the  story  of  the  remaining  years  of  his  life  we  are 
indebted  to  his  friend  and  disciple,  Possidius,  bishop  of  Calama, 
who  wrote  about  432  a  Vita  Sancti  Augustini  that  begins  where  the 
Confessions  leave  off6.  Some  friends  and  disciples  accompanied 
Augustine  to  Tagaste  where  he  took  up  his  residence  on  a  small 
estate  he  had  inherited.    Here,  for  about  three  years  (ferme  triennio)6, 

1  Ib.,  v.   14,   25.  2  Ib.,  viii.    12,   29.  3  Ib.,  ix.   2,  3.  *  Ib.,  ix.  8,    17. 

Tigne,  PL.,  xxxii.   33 — 66.  6  Possid.,  Vita  Augustini,  c.  3. 


476  SECOND    PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 

he  led  a  life  of  ideal  retirement,  dividing  his  time  between  the  care 
of  his  little  monastic  community,  religious  meditation,  and  literary 
labors.  During  this  period  Adeodatus  died.  Early  in  391,  Augustine 
made  a  journey  to  Hippo  Regius,  an  important  city  on  the  Numidian 
coast.  It  was  an  eventful  journey,  for  he  was  destined  never  to  enjoy 
again  his  rustic  solitude.  The  fame  of  his  piety  and  learning  had 
already  spread  far  and  wide.  When  Valerius,  the  aged  bishop  of 
Hippo,  made  known  to  the  people  in  his  presence  the  necessity  of 
ordaining  a  new  priest,  they  turned  at  once  towards  Augustine,  and 
demanded  of  him  that  he  should  accept  that  office.  It  was  with 
great  reluctance  and  after  much  opposition  that  he  yielded.  He 
justified  abundantly  the  hopes  that  had  been  placed  on  him.  In 
order  to  bind  him  permanently  to  the  Church  of  Hippo,  Valerius 
had  him  consecrated  (394  or  395)  as  coadjutor-bishop,  by  the  Nu- 
midian primate,  Megalius  of  Calama.  Shortly  after,  395  or  396, 
Valerius  passed  away,  and  Augustine  became  bishop  of  Hippo  in  his 
place.  He  did  not  change  his  previous  manner  of  life,  and  kept  up 
with  the  clerics  of  his  household  the  habits  of  a  monastic  community. 
He  was  especially  zealous  in  preaching,  and  often  discoursed  to  the 
people  on  five  successive  days,  sometimes  twice  in  one  day.  He 
was  also  tireless  in  the  service  of  the  poor.  Like  Ambrose,  he  broke 
up  and  sold  the  Church  plate  in  order  to  succour  the  needy  and  to 
redeem  captives1.  Withal,  he  was  strongly  drawn  towards  literary 
labors.  From  his  early  youth  such  occupations  had  become  a  second 
nature  to  him;  he  now  found  in  them  a  change  and  a  recreation 
amid  his  official  duties  and  solicitudes.  The  great  ecclesiastical 
questions  of  the  time  appealed  constantly  to  him;  his  conflict  with 
heresy  and  schism  closed  only  with  his  life.  There  were  still  in  Africa 
and  in  Hippo  itself  many  Manichaeans,  a  circumstance  that  caused  him 
to  continue  with  energy  the  literary  refutation  of  Manichaeism  that  he 
began  at  Rome  after  his  baptism.  The  following  noble  words  from 
an  anti-Manichaean  work  of  396  or  397  furnish  the  key-note  of  these 
controversies:  «Let  those  rage  against  you  who  know  not  what  toil 
it  takes  to  discover  the  truth,  and  how  difficult  it  is  to  free  one's 
self  from  error.  ...  I  must  show  you  as  much  patience  as  my  friends 
exhibited  to  me  when  I  wandered  about  foolishly  and  blindly  in  the 
errors  that  you  now  cherish» 2.  Another  grave  problem  of  the  time 
was  the  Donatist  schism,  a  source  of  profound  suffering  for  the 
African  Church  (§  89,  2).  Since  his  ordination  to  the  priesthood, 
Augustine  had  opposed  its  progress  with  great  energy,  in  his  sermons, 
and  also  by  public  disputations  and  correspondence  with  the  heads 
of  the  schism.  It  was  only  in  view  of  the  increasing  violence  of  the 
sectaries,    and  after  much  hesitation  and  reluctance,    that  he  yielded 

1  Possid.,  Vita  Augustini,  c.  24. 

2  Contra  ep.  Manich.  quam  voc.  fund.,   2,   2  —  3. 


§    94-      ST.    AUGUSTINE.  477 

to  the  decision  of  his  fellow-bishops  to  appeal  to  the  secular  arm 
for  the  suppression  of  the  schism  or  the  restoration  of  ecclesiastical 
unity.  In  June,  411,  he  gained  a  splendid  victory  for  the  faith  in 
the  famous  disputation  held  at  Carthage  in  which  two  hundred  and 
eighty-six  Catholic  and  two  hundredand  seventy-nine  Donatist  bishops 
took  part.  Augustine  was  the  soul  of  the  Catholic  party;  he  over- 
threw with  success  all  the  arguments  of  his  opponents,  and  laid 
bare  all  their  artifices.  In  the  following  year  (412),  a  new  enemy, 
Pelagianism,  appeared  on  the  scene;  he  was  destined  to  consume 
the  remainder  of  his  days  in  the  conflict  that  was  then  opening  up 
before  him;  indeed,  it  is  to  this  conflict  that  he  owes  his  foremost 
place  in  the  history  of  Catholic  doctrine.  His  contemporaries  re- 
cognized at  once  that  he  was  a  God-given  interpreter  and  defender 
of  the  teachings  of  the  Church  concerning  divine  grace.  When  Pope 
Zosimus,  at  the  request  of  the  African  episcopate,  had  condemned 
Pelagianism  (418),  the  aged  Jerome,  himself  the  author  of  an  anti- 
Pelagian  work  (§  93,  7),  wrote  as  follows  to  St.  Augustine:  «Hail 
to  thee !  The  world  resounds  with  thy  praise.  The  Catholics  admire 
and  honor  thee  as  the  restorer  of  the  ancient  faith  (conditorem  an- 
tiquae  rursum  fidei)»  *.  In  the  last  years  of  his  life,  Augustine  was 
destined  to  drink  again  of  the  chalice  of  sorrow.  The  Roman  empire 
began  to  fall  apart  on  all  sides;  Roman  Africa  in  particular  was 
visited  with  unspeakable  afflictions.  The  proconsul  Boniface  uplifted 
the  standard  of  revolt  and  called  to  his  aid  the  Vandals  of  Spain. 
These  barbarians  turned  the  granary  of  Italy  into  a  howling  desert. 
It  was  in  vain  that  Boniface  repented  and  took  the  field  against  his 
pretended  friends  and  allies ;  he  was  routed  by  them  and  compelled 
to  take  refuge  with  the  remnant  of  his  army  in  the  fortress  of  Hippo. 
In  the  third  month  of  the  siege,  and  amid  all  its  horrors,  Augustine 
fell  sick  of  a  violent  fever.  He  prayed  to  God:  ut  aut  hanc  civi- 
tatem  ab  hostibus  circumdatam  liberare  dignetur,  aut,  si  aliud  ei 
videtur,  suos  servos  ad  perferendam  suam  voluntatem  fortes  faciat, 
aut  certe  ut  me  de  hoc  saeculo  ad  se  accipiat2.  The  latter  prayer 
was  heard;  God  freed  His  petitioner  from  earthly  woes,  Aug.  28.,  430. 
He  was  seventy-six  years  of  age,  and  his  death  took  place  in  the 
presence  of  his  friends  and  disciples. 

3.  RETRACT ATIONES  AND  CONFESSIONES.  PHILOSOPHICAL  WRIT- 
INGS. —  The  Benedictine  edition  of  the  writings  of  Saint  Augustine 
(Paris,  1679  fr.),  the  basis  of  all  later  editions,  rightly  begins  with: 
Retractationum  libri  duo, 3  and :  Confessionum  libri  tredecim  *.  In  the 
former  work  written  toward  the  end  of  his  life,  about  427,  he  sur- 
veys with  a  critical  eye  the  entire  field  of  his  literary  labors  since 
his   conversion   in  386.     He  draws  up  a  chronological  list  of  all  his 

1  Ep.   195,  inter  Epp.  S.  Aug.  2  Possid.,  1.  c,  c.   29. 

3  Migne,  PL.,  xxxii.   583 — 656. 


478 


SECOND    PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 


writings,  with  the  exception  of  his  letters  and  discourses:  opera 
nonaginta  tria  in  libris  ducentis  triginta  duobus 1.  He  frequently  adds 
valuable  information  concerning  the  occasion  and  purpose,  the  concept 
and  the  composition  of  his  writings,  and  sometimes  contributes  cor- 
rections of  the  same,  especially  where  he  thought  himself  inexact 
in  doctrinal  matters.  Of  this  work  he  wrote  as  follows  to  a  friend: 
Retractabam  opuscula  mea,  et  si  quid  in  eis  me  ofifenderet  vel  alios 
ofTendere  posset,  partim  reprehendendo,  partim  defendendo,  quod 
legi  deberet  et  posset  operabar2.  Naturally  this  work  is  of  funda- 
mental importance  for  the  so-called  higher  criticism  of  his  literary 
legacy.  It  must  be  read  in  connection  with  the:  Indiculus  librorum, 
tractatuum  et  epistolarum  S.  Augustini,  attached  to  his  life  (see 
no.  2)  written  by  Possidius.  The  Confessiones,  written  about  400, 
is  one  of  his  most  famous  works.  Its  first  nine  books  were  com- 
posed in  order  to  prove  by  his  personal  experience  the  truth  of  a 
principle  laid  down  at  the  beginning:  Fecisti  nos  ad  te  (Domine), 
et  inquietum  est  cor  nostrum,  donee  requiescat  in  te.  In  these  nine 
books  he  depicts  with  fulness  the  story  of  his  mental  development 
until  the  death  of  his  mother  in  387.  The  tenth  book  exhibits  him 
as  he  was  at  the  time  of  its  composition  (quis  adhuc  sim,  ecce  in 
ipso  tempore  confessionum  mearum)3.  The  last  three  books  contain 
meditations  on  the  creation-narrative  in  Genesis.  Formally,  the  work 
is  an  outpouring  of  his  heart  before  the  all-knowing  God;  it  is  to 
his  Maker  that  he  constantly  addresses  himself  throughout  the  work. 
He  describes  as  follows  its  contents  and  purpose:  Confessionum 
mearum  libri  tredeeim  et  de  malis  et  de  bonis  meis  Deum  laudant 
iustum  et  bonum  atque  in  eum  excitant  humanum  intellectum  et 
affectum 4.  These  and  other  expressions  make  it  clear  that  Augustine 
understood  by  the  word  «confessiones»  not  so  much  the  manifestation 
of  his  thoughts  and  deeds  as  the  praise  of  God.  There  is  positively 
no  foundation  for  the  suspicions  expressed  by  Harnack  and  Boissier 
concerning  the  historical  reality  of  this  account  of  the  conversion 
of  St.  Augustine.  —  In  the  first  volume  of  the  Benedictine  edition 
these  works  are  followed  by  his-  philosophical  writings.  They  are 
among  the  earliest  efforts  of  his  pen,  and  belong  nearly  all  to  the 
period  before  his  baptism.  A  work:  De  pulchro  et  apto,  written 
while  he  was  still  a  professor  of  rhetoric  at  Carthage  and  a  Manichaean, 
has  perished;  he  mentions  it  in  the  Confessions5.  Immediately  after 
his  conversion  he  wrote  at  Cassiciacum  three  books:  Contra  Acade- 
micos 6,  in  refutation  of  the  scepticism  of  the  Neo- Academicians 7 ;  a 
dialogue:  De  beata  vita 8,  in  proof  of  the   truth   that  the    only  true 

1  Retract.,  ii.  67.  2  Ep.  224,  2.  3  Conf ;  x    £  4 

4  Retract.,  ii.  6,   1.  ■  iv.   13  —  15  20—27. 

6  Migne,  PL.,  xxxii.  905—958.  7  Retract.,  i.    1. 

8  Migne,  PL.,  xxxii.  959 — 976. 


§    94-      ST.    AUGUSTINE..  479 

happiness  is  the  knowledge  of  God  1 ;  a  dialogue:  De  ordine,  in  two 
books2,  dealing  with  the  place  and  office  of  evil  in  God's  dealing 
with  the  world3,  and  two  books  of:  Soliloquia  or  monologues4,  on 
the  means  of  attaining  to  super-sensible  truths  with  special  reference 
to  the  immortality  of  the  soul5.  The  pious  works  known  as:  Soli- 
loquia, Meditationes,  Manuale,  and  widely  accepted  as  writings  of 
Augustine,  are  of  mediaeval  origin6.  Early  in  387,  on  his  return 
from  Cassiciacum  to  Milan  and  before  his  baptism,  he  undertook  to 
continue  and  complete  the  genuine  Soliloquia7;  at  the  same  time  he 
began  an  encyclopaedic  treatise  on  the  Seven  liberal  arts8.  The  con- 
tinuation just  mentioned  is  known  as :  De  immortalitate  animae 9,  and 
remained  an  unfinished  sketch;  the  work  on  the  seven  liberal  arts 
also  was  never  finished.  Only  the  section  De  grammatica  was  then 
written;  it  has  reached  us  in  two  compendia:  the  longer  one  is  in 
Migne 10.  Later  on,  he  completed  in  Africa  the  section  De  musica,  or 
at  least  the  chapter  De  rhythmo:  De  musica  libri  sex11.  Of  the  other 
five  sections:  De  dialectica,  De  rhetorica,  De  geometria,  De  arith- 
metica,  De  philosophia,  only  the  first  outlines  and  concepts  were 
prepared.  His:  Principia  dialecticae 12,  and  his:  Principia  rhetorices 13, 
have  reached  us;  the:  Categoriae  decern  ex  Aristotele  decerptae14, 
are  probably  spurious.  His  philosophical  writings  include  also  the 
dialogue :  De  quantitate  animae 15,  in  proof  of  the  immateriality  of  the 
soul,  and:  De  magistro lß,  an  interpretation  of  Matt,  xxiii.  10:  Unus 
est  magister  vester,  Christus.  He  wrote  both  these  dialogues  after 
his  baptism,  the  first  at  Rome,  the  second  in  Africa17. 

4.  APOLOGETIC  AND  DOGMATIC  WRITINGS.  —  The  most  important 
of  all  the  writings  of  Augustine  is  his :  De  civitate  Dei 18,  in  twenty- 
two  books,  composed  in  the  years  413 — 426  and  published  piece- 
meal (cf.  v.  26,  2).  It  owes  its  origin  to  a  renewal  of  pagan  accusa- 
tions against  the  Christians.  Thus,  the  responsibility  for  the  sack 
of  Rome  by  Alaric  (410)  was  laid  at  the  door  of  the  latter:  the 
overthrow  of  polytheism,  it  was  said,  had  irritated  the  gods  under 
whose  protection  the  eternal  city  had  grown  to  be  the  mistress  of 
the  world.  This  reproach  was  not,  a  new  one;  it  had  been  current 
since  the  days  of  the  apologists.  Augustine  is  not  contented  with 
a  refutation  of  this  calumny ;  he  undertakes  to  establish,  for  all  time, 
the  true  relationship  of  Christianity  to  paganism ;  his  view  embraces 
not  only  the  present  but  also  the   past   and    the    future;    the   whole 

1  Retract.,  i.   2.  2  Migne,  PL.,'  xxxii.  977 — 1020.  3  Retract.,  i.  3. 

4  Migne,  PL.,  xxxii.  869 — 904.  5  Retract.,  i.  4. 

6  Migne,  PL.,  xl.  863—898  901—942  951—968.  "  7  Retract.,  i.   5. 

8  Ib.,  i.  6.  9  Migne,  PL.,  xxxii.    102 1 — 1034. 

10  Ib.,  xxxii.    1385 — 1408.  u  Ib.,  xxxii.    1081  — 1194;  Retract,  i.   II. 

12  Migne,  PL.,  xxxii.    1409— 1420.  ,3  Ib.,  xxxii.    1439  — 1448. 

u  Ib.,  xxxii.    1419 — 1440.  15  Ib.,  xxxii.   1035 — 1080. 

16  Ib.,  xxxii.    1 1 93 — 1220.  n  Retract.,  i.  8   12.  18  Migne,  PL.,  xli. 


480  SECOND    PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 

course  of  human  history  lies  open  before  him,  and  from  the  beginning 
to  the  end  he  interprets  it  with  power  and  insight.  His  apology 
for  Christianity  rises  at  once  to  the  dignity  of  a  magnificent  philosophy 
of  history,  a  work  that  towers  «like  an  Alpine  peak»  over  all  the 
other  apologies  of  Christian  antiquity.  He  tells  us  himself1  that  the 
work  is  divided  into  two  parts.  In  the  first  part  (books  i — x)  he 
follows  an  apologetico-polemical  purpose:  books  i— v  refute  the 
popular  pagan  opinion  that  polytheism  was  necessary  for  earthly 
felicity;  books  vi — x  are  directed  against  the  thesis  of  the  (Neo- 
platonist)  philosophers  that  the  worship  of  the  gods  was  useful  for 
the  future  life.  The  second  part  containing  the  other  twelve  books 
is  speculative  and  metaphysical.  In  these  books  he  treats  of  the 
two  great  kingdoms  (civitates)  in  and  through  which  goes  on  the 
development  of  life  and  humanity:  the  kingdom  of  God  and  the 
kingdom  of  this  world.  The  kingdom  of  God  is  made  of  His  sub- 
ject angels  and  men;  the  sign  of  the  kingdom  of  this  world,  its 
essence  at  once  and  its  sum  total,  is  apostasy  from  God.  It  is  only 
in  this  time  (in  hoc  saeculo)  that  these  two  kingdoms  interpenetrate 
and  overlap  one  another  (perplexae  invicemque  permixtae)2,  because 
the  citizens  of  the  former  (the  just)  still  move  as  pilgrims  among  the 
citizens  of  the  other  (the  wicked).  In  the  first  four  books  of  the 
second  part  (xi — xiv)  he  describes  the  origin  of  both  kingdoms  (ex- 
ortum  duarum  civitatum),  as  it  is  constituted  by  the  creation  of  the 
angels  and  the  fall  of  the  apostate  angels.  In  books  xv — xviii,  he 
treats  of  the  development  and  progress  of  the  two  kingdoms  (ex- 
cursum  earum  sive  procursum),  and  in  books  xix — xxii,  their  definite 
purpose  and  end  (debitos  fines).  The  work  is  specially  valuable  for 
the  historical  and  archaeological  excursus  in  which  it  abounds  and 
for  which  he  drew  largely  on  Cicero,  Varro  and  the  Hieronymian 
recension  of  the  Chronicon  of  Eusebius.  Thus  the  chapters  on 
ancient  mythology  in  the  sixth  book  furnish  us  with  a  more  ac- 
curate knowledge  of  the  contents  of  the  lost  work  of  Varro :  Anti- 
quitates  rerum  humanarum  et  divinarum.  In  the  little  work:  De 
divinatione  daemonum 3,  written  between  406  and  411,  he  examines 
the  knowledge  of  the  demons  concerning  the  future  and  compares 
their  predictions  with  the  language  of  the  prophets4.  The  sermon 
(tractatus):  Adversus  Judaeos5,  illustrates  the  justice  of  God  in  the 
rejection  of  the  Jews.  The  works  against  the  Manichaeans  will  be 
described  in  no.  5.  —  Dogmatic  works:  His  only  systematic  account 
'  of  Catholic  dogma  is  the :  Enchiridion  ad  Laurentium  sive :  De  fide, 
spe  et  caritate  liber  unus6  written  about  421.  It  was  written  in 
reply  to  the  request  of  Lauren tius,  a  Roman  layman,  who  had  asked 

1  Retract.,  ii.  43.  2  De  cjv    Deij  ;    35;  xi     x 

8  Migne,  PL.,  xl.   581  —  592.  *  Retract.,  ii.   30. 

h  Migne,  PL.,  xlii.   51—64.  «  Ib.,  xl.  231—290. 


§    94-      ST.    AUGUSTINE.  48 1 

him  for  a  correct  and  handy  compendium  of  Catholic  teaching1. 
The  work:  De  doctrina  Christiana  properly  belongs  to  his  exegetical 
writings  (see  no.  8);  the:  De  vera  religione  is  mostly  an  anti-Manichaean 
work  (see  no.  5).  In  the:  De  fide  et  symbolo2,  written  in  393,  he 
gave  an  exposition  of  the  Apostles'  Creed3.  Quite  similar  in  con- 
tents is  his  discourse  (sermo):  De  symbolo  ad  catechumenos 4.  In 
the:  De  fide  rerum  quae  non  videntur,  a  work  or  rather  a  sermon 
composed  after  399,  he  demonstrates  the  reasonableness  of  belief 
in  the  invisible  and  the  supernatural5.  In  the:  De  fide  et  operibus6, 
written  early  in  413,  he  shows  that  faith  alone  without  good  works 
is  not  sufficient  for  salvation7.  The  longest  and  most  important  of 
his  dogmatic  works  is  the:  De  Trinitate8,  begun  about  410  but  not 
finished  until  after  416 9.  It  consists  of  two  parts:  in  the  first  seven 
books  he  develops  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  according  to  Holy 
Scripture,  while  in  the  other  eight  he  undertakes  a  scientific  illustra- 
tion and  defence  of  this  doctrine.  The  human  mind,  an  image  of 
God,  furnishes  him  with  numerous  analogies  to  the  Trinity:  mens 
et  notitia  qua  se  novit  et  amor  quo  se  notitiamque  suam  diligit; 
memoria  et  intelligentia  et  voluntas,  and  the  like  (cf.  xv.  3,  5).  He 
is  conscious,  however,  that  it  is  impossible  to  demonstrate  philo- 
sophically the  truth  and  necessity  of  this  mystery.  Of  these  fifteen 
books  he  says  himself:  Nimis  operosi  sunt  et  a  paucis  eos  intelligi 
posse  arbitror10.  The  two  books:  De  coniugiis  adulterinis11,  written 
about  419,  defend  the  indissolubility  of  Christian  marriage,  and  the 
invalidity  of  a  second  marriage  of  one  party  during  the  life-time  of 
the  other 12.  In  the  treatise :  De  cura  gerenda  pro  mortuis  13,  written 
about  421,  he  answers  a  question  of  St.  Paulinus  of  Nola  concerning 
burials  in  the  basilicas  of  the  martyrs:  such  a  custom  is  useful  in  so 
far  as  it  reminds  the  faithful  of  the  duty  to  pray  for  the  dead,  and 
thereby  procures  the  intercession  of  the  martyrs14.  In  three  works 
entitled :  Quaestiones,  he  treats  a  number  of  dogmatic  and  exegetical 
problems:  De  diversis  quaestionibus  lxxxiii  liber  unus15,  begun  at  the 
end  of  388  16;  De  diversis  quaestionibus  ad  Simplicianum  libri  duo17, 
written  about  397 18;  De  octo  Dulcitii  quaestionibus  liber  unus 19,  written 
probably  in  422  or  425  20. 

5.    DOGMATICO-POLEMICAL   WRITINGS.   —    At    the    request    of  the 
deacon  Quodvultdeus  of  Carthage  he  composed  towards  the  end  of 

1  Retract.,  ii.  63.  2  Migne,  PL.,  xl.   181— 196.  3  Retract.,  i.    17. 

4  Migne,  PL.,  xl.  627—636.  5  lb.,  xl.    171  — 1,&0<. 

6  Ib.,  xl.    197  —  230.  7  Retract.,  ii..  38. 

8  Migne,  PL.,  xlii.   819—1098.  9  Retract.,   ii.    15.  10  Ep.    169,    I,    1. 

11  Migne,  PL.,  xl.   451—486.  12  Retract.,   ii.   57. 

13  Migne,  PL.,  xl.   591—610.  M  Retract.,   ii.  64. 

15  Migne,  PL.,  xl.    11  — 100.  16  Retract.,  i.   26. 

17  Migne,  PL.,  xl.    101— 148.  13  Retract.,   ii.    1.  „ 

19  Migne,  PL.,  xl.    147—170.  20  Retract.,   ii.  65. 

Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  3  I 


.32  SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

his  life,  about  428,  a  compendium  of  the  history  of  heresies  entitled: 
De  haeresibus1.  In  this  work  Augustine  shows  his  acquaintance  with 
similar  treatises  of  his  predecessors  Epiphanius  and  Philastrius  (§  89,  4) 
and  makes  use  of  them ;  he  is  content,  however,  with  exhibiting  the 
original  source  and  the  fundamental  ideas  of  each  heresy;  from 
Simon  Magus  to  Pelagius  he  enumerates  eighty-eight  heresies.  He 
never  finished  the  second  part  of  this  work,  though  he  says  in  the 
preface:  in  posterioribus  autem  partibus  quid  faciat  haereticum  dis- 
putabitur.  —  Anti-Manichcean  works :  Some  of  the  heresies  described 
in  the  above-mentioned  work  were  the  occasion  of  many  other  writings 
of  our  Saint  who  incessantly  opposed  all  heresy  both  by  voice  and 
pen;  for  several  decades  he  was  the  vigorous  opponent  of  Manichaeism, 
Donatism  and  Pelagianism.  To  the  dualism  of  the  Manichaeans  who 
looked  on  good  and  evil  as  being  equally  necessary,  he  opposes 
the  monism  of  the  good  principle.  Even  the  Old  Testament  is  a 
revelation  of  the  one  true  God.  There  is  no  contradiction  between 
the  Old  and  the  New  Testament,  as  the  Manichaeans  pretended ;  on 
the  contrary,  the  most  perfect  harmony  exists  between  them:  quan- 
quam  et  in  Vetere  Novum  lateat  et  in  Novo  Vetus  pateat2.  The 
cause  of  evil  is  the  free  will  of  the  creature ;  evil  is  not  a  substance, 
but  an  accident  of  good,  a  negation,  a  privation,  a  harm  suffered 
by  nature,  a  damage  done  to  her  integrity.  Hence  there  can  exist 
purely  good  things,  but  purely  evil  things  cannot  exist:  sola  ergo 
bona  alicubi  esse  possunt,  sola  mala  nusquam3.  Evil  cannot  disturb 
the  order  and  the  beauty  of  the  universe,  nor  can  it  escape  the  laws 
by  which  divine  Providence  rules  the  world ;  on  the  contrary,  it  must 
also  serve  the  divine  purpose.  It  seemed  better  to  God  that  He 
should  bring  good  out  of  evil  than  not  to  permit  the  existence  of 
evil:  potentius  et  melius  esse  iudicans  etiam  de  malis  bene  facere 
quam  mala  esse  non  sinere4.  If  we  add  that  when  occasion  offers, 
he  holds  up  to  scorn  the  immoral  life  and  manners  of  the  Manichaeans, 
we  shall  have  indicated  with  sufficient  clearness  the  circle  of  ideas 
within  which  his  anti-Manichaean  writings  move.  The  earliest  of  them 
are:  De  moribus  ecclesiae  catholicae  et  de  moribus  Manichaeorum 
libri  duo5,  and:  De  libero  arbitrio  libri  tres6,  both  of  them  begun 
at  Rome  in  388  after  his  baptism,  but  finished  in  Africa,  the  first 
about  389,  the  second  in  395 7.  Two  other  works  were  written 
during  his  retirement  at  Tagaste  in  389 — 390 8;  for  De  Genesi  see 
no.  8;  they  are:  De  Genesi  contra  Manichaeos  libri  duo9,  and:  De 
vera  religione 10.    While  still  a  priest  in  Hippo,  he  wrote,  apparently 

1  Migne,  PL.,  xlii.   21 — 50.  2  Quaest.  in  Heptateuchum,  ii.   73. 

3  De  civ.  Dei,  xii.   3.  *  Ib.,  xiii.    1,   2;  Enchiridion  27. 

5  Migne,  PL.,  xxxii.    1309  — 1378.  6  lb.,  xxxii.    1221  — 1310. 

7  Retract.,  i.   7  9.  8  Ib.,  i.    10   13.  *  Migne,  PL.,  xxxiv.    173—220. 

10  Ib.,  xxxiv.    121  — 172. 


§    94-      ST.    AUGUSTINE.  483 

in  391 :  De  utilitate  credendi  ad  Honoratum1,  and:  De  duabus  animabus 
contra  Manichaeos2,  also  (392)  the:  Acta  seu  disputatio  contra  For- 
tunatum  Manichaeum,  the  proceedings  of  a  public  controversy  held 
at  Hippo  Aug.  28. — 29.,  392 3;  also,  about  394;  Contra  Adimantum 
Manichaei  discipulum4.  In  396  or  397  he  wrote  the:  Contra  epistolam 
Manichaei  quam  vocant  fundamenti 5 ;  about  400  the :  Contra  Faustum 
Manichaeum  libri  triginta  tres6.  The:  De  actis  cum  Felice  Manichaeo 
libri  duo7,  represent  a  public  controversy  of  Dec.  7.  and  12.,  404. 
De  natura  boni  contra  Manichaeos8  was  written  after  404;  Contra 
Secundinum  Manichaeum9;  Secundini  Manichaei  epistola  ad  Augu- 
stinum  was  written  about  405  l0.  His  treatise:  Ad  Orosium  Contra 
Priscillianistas  et  Origenistas  n,  was  written  in  415,  in  refutation  of  the 
Spanish  heresy  that  was  based  on  Manichaean  principles  (§  89,  3). 
The  assertion  that  the  Old  Testament  is  the  work  of  evil  spirits  and 
not  the  work  of  God  was  thoroughly  refuted  by  him  in  two  books : 
Contra  adversarium  legis  et  prophetarum  12,  written  early  in  420.  The: 
Commonitorium  quomodo  sit  agendum  cum  Manichaeis  qui  con- 
vertuntur13,  is  considered  to  be  spurious  by  the  Benedictine  editors. 
The :  De  fide  contra  Manichaeos u,  is  very  probably  the  work  of 
Evodius,  a  friend  of  Augustine,  who  in  396  or  397  became  bishop 
of  Uzalum  in  proconsular  Africa   (f  Oct.    16.,  424). 

6.  DOGMATICO- POLEMICAL  WRITINGS  (CONTINUED).  —  Anti- 
Donatist  writings:  Augustine  himself  has  defined  the  issues  of  the 
Donatist  controversy:  Duo  mala  vestra  vobis  obiicimus,  unum  quod 
erratis  in  baptismi  quaestione,  alterum  quod  vos  ab  eis  qui  de  hac 
re  verum  sentiunt  separatis15.  The  Donatists  maintained  that  the 
validity,  power,  and  effect  of  baptism  depended  on  the  subjective 
conditions  of  the  baptizing  and  baptized  persons.  According  to 
Augustine,  baptism  is  a  means  of  grace  that  produces  its  effect  ob- 
jectively. There  is  no  baptism  of  Donatus  or  Rogatus  or  any  such, 
but  only  the  one  baptism  of  Christ  that  of  and  by  itself  transmits 
grace  by  reason  of  innate  divine  power,  independently  of  all  human 
merit  or  demerit16.  Similarly  the  other  contention  of  the  Donatists 
is  wrong,    viz.  that  they  are  the  only  true  Church    of  Christ,    which 

1  Ib.,  xlii.  65—92.  2  Ib.,  xlii.  93—112.  3  Ib.,  xlii.   1 11  — 130. 

4  Ib.,  xlii.    129 — 172;   cf.   Retract.,  i.    14   15    16  22. 

5  Migne,  PL.,  xlii.  173—206;  Retract.,  ii.   2. 

6  Migne,  PL.,  xlii.  207-518;  Retract.,  ii.   7. 

7  Migne,  PL.,  xlii.  519 — 552 ;  Retract.,  ii.  8. 

8  Migne,  PL.,  xlii.  551—572;  Retract.,  ii.  9. 

9  Migne,  PL.,  xlii.  577—602. 

10  Migne,  PL.,  xlii.   571—578;  Retract.,  ii.    10. 

11  Migne,  PL.,  xlii.  669—678;  Retract.,  ii.  44. 

12  Migne,  PL.,  xlii.  604—666;  Retract.,  ii.   58. 

13  Migne,  PL.,  xlii.   1 153  — 11 56.  u  Ib.,  xlii.   1139  — 1154. 
15  Contra  Cresconium,  iii.  3.              16  Ep.  93,    11,  46—49. 

3i* 


484  SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

can  have  for  its  members  only  the  perfectly  just  or  those  who  are 
without  sin.  The  Church  of  Christ  is  that  Church,  and  that  one 
only,  which  has  the  testimony  of  Holy  Scripture,  which  has  been 
ever  growing  and  spreading  since  the  time  of  Christ,  and  is  now 
the  Catholic  Church  that  includes  all  the  peoples  of  the  world.  In 
her  temporal  development  this  Church  is  a  mixed  society,  in  which 
dwell  both  the  good  and  the  bad,  a  net  in  which  are  found  both 
good  and  bad  fish,  a  flock  in  which  the  sheep  and  the  goats  are 
close  together,  a  house  with  vessels  of  honor  and  vessels  of  dishonor, 
a  field  in  which  the  grain  and  the  chaff  grow  side  by  side  *.  Finally 
Donatism  raised  the  question  of  the  relations  of  Church  and  State, 
or  rather  the  relations  of  the  civil  power  to  liberty  of  conscience 
and  faith.  We  have  seen  (no.  2)  that,  when  pacific  means  had 
failed,  the  Donatist  schism  was  suppressed  by  force.  Augustine 
justifies  this  policy  by  reference  to  the  parable  of  the  banquet.  The 
householder  gives  the  order:  Exite  in  vias  et  sepes  et  quoscumque 
inveneritis  cogite  intrare2,  and  Augustine  expounds  this  text  as  follows: 
Hi  qui  inveniuntur  in  viis  et  in  sepibus,  id  est  in  haeresibus  et 
schismatibus,  coguntur  intrare3.  His  earliest  anti-Donatist  work  is  a 
rhythmic  poem  written  towards,  the  end  of  393,  entitled:  Psalmus 
contra  partem  Donati,  or:  Psalmus  abecedarius,  because  its  twenty 
strophes  each  begin  with  a  letter  of  the  alphabet  in  regular  order 
from  A  to  V4.  Its  object  was  to  explain  to  the  simple  faithful  the 
history  and  the  ideas  of  the  Donatists;  for  that  purpose  it  was  to 
be  sung  by  the  people  in  the  churches5.  A  contemporaneous  work: 
Contra  epistolam  Donati,  has  perished  6.  He  composed  about  400  the 
works:  Contra  epistolam  Parmeniani  libri  tres7,  and:  De  baptismo 
contra  Donatistas  libri  septem8.  A  somewhat  earlier  work  in  two 
books:  Contra  partem  Donati9,  and  a  somewhat  later  one:  Contra 
quod  attulit  Centurius  a  Donatistis 10,  have  not  reached  us.  He  began 
in  400  and  finished  in  402:  Contra  litteras  Petiliani  Donatistae. 
Cirtensis  episcopi,  libri  tres  %K  To  the  same  period  is  usually  ascribed 
a  rather  long  circular:  Ad  Catholicos  epistola  contra  Donatistas, 
vulgo:  De  unitate  ecclesiae  liber  unus12;  its  genuineness,  however,  is 
not  admitted  by  all.  He  wrote  about  406  the:  Contra  Cresconium 
grammaticum  partis  Donati  libri  quatuor13.  Three  other  works  of 
the  same  period  have  perished :  Probationum  et  testimoniorum  contra 
Donatistas  liber,  Contra  nescio  quern  Donatistam  liber,  Admonitio 
Donatistarum   de    Maximianistis u.     The:    Liber   testimoniorum    fidei 

1  Ep.  93,  9,  34;    12,   50  etc.  2  Lk.  xiv.   23.              3  Ep.    185,  6,   24. 

4  Migne,  PL.,  xliii.  23—32.  5  Retract.,  i.   20.              6  Ib.,   i.   21. 

7  Migne,  PL.,  xliii.  33—108.  8  Ib.,  xliii.    107—244;  Retract.,  ii.    17   18. 

9  Retract.,  ii.   5.  10  lb.,  ii.   19. 

11  Migne,  PL.,  xliii.  245—388;  Retract.,  ii.   25. 

12  Migne,  PL.,  xliii.  391—446.  l3  lb.,  xliii.  445—594;  Retract.,  ii.   26. 
u  Retract.,  ii.   27   28  29. 


§   94-     ST-    AUGUSTINE.  485 

contra  Donatistas,  edited  by  Pitra  (1888)  as  a  work  of  Augustine, 
does  not  belong  to  him;  nor  was  it  written  against  the  Donatists, 
but  against  the  Arians  and  Macedonians.  Augustine  devoted  a  special 
work  to  the  Maximianists,  a  rigorist  faction  of  the  Donatists:  De 
Maximianistis  contra  Donatistas1,  but  it  has  perished.  He  wrote 
probably  about  410:  De  unico  baptismo  contra  Petilianum,  ad  Con- 
stantinum,  liber  unus2.  The:  Breviculus  collationis  cum  Donatistis,  is 
an  extract  from  the  acts  of  the  colloquy  on  religion  held  at  Carthage 
in  41 13.  The  work:  Ad  Donatistas  post  collationem  liber  unus,  was 
written  in  412 4.  Mention  must  also  be  made  of  his:  Sermo  ad 
Csesareensis  ecclesiae  plebem  Emerito  praesente  habitus5,  Ad  Eme- 
ritum  Donatistarum  episcopum  post  collationem  liber  unus6,  De 
gestis  cum  Emerito  Csesareensi  Donatistarum  episcopo  liber  unus, 
written  in  418 7,  and:  Contra  Gaudentium  Donatistarum  episcopum 
libri  duo,  written  about  420 8.  In  the  disputation  at  Carthage 
Emeritus,  bishop  of  Caesarea  Mauretania  (Algiers),  and  Gaudentius 
of  Tamaguda  (Timgad)  had  been  the  leaders  on  the  Donatist  side. 
The:  Sermo  de  Rusticano  subdiacono  a  Donatistis  rebaptizato  et  in 
diaconum  ordinato9,  is  a  spurious  work. 

7.  DOGMATICO-POLEMICAL  WRITINGS  (CONTINUED).  —  Anti-Pelagian 
works:  The  error  to  the  refutation  of  which  Augustine  consecrated 
the  evening  of  his  life  took  its  name  from  the  British  monk  Pelagius, 
whose  teaching  was  developed  and  formulated  more  definitely  by 
Caelestius,  a  man  of  obscure  origin.  The  most  zealous  defender  of 
this  error  was  Julianus,  bishop  of  Eclanum,  a  writer  of  eminent  dia- 
lectical skill,  combative  spirit  and  remarkable  self-reliance.  We  cannot 
outline  more  clearly  the  nature  of  the  Pelagian  error  than  by  repro- 
ducing the  summary  notice  which  Augustine  consecrates  to  it  in  the 
last  chapter  of  his  De  haeresibus  (see  no.  5).  In  this  compendium 
of  Pelagianism  he  states,  briefly  at  once  and  clearly,  its  fundamental 
concepts  and  his  own  reasons  for  rejecting  them.  The  Pelagians,  he 
says,  are  so  inimical  to  divine  grace  through  which  we  have  escaped 
the  power  of  darkness  and  are  raised  to  the  dignity  of  children  of 
God,  that  they  believe  men  capable  of  fulfilling  the  divine  command- 
ments without  its  help.  Our  Lord,  on  the  contrary,  has  said :  Nemo 
venit  ad  me,  nisi  fuerit  ei  datum  a  Patre  meo 10,  and  again :  Sine  me 
nihil  potestis  facere11.  When  the  brethren  reproached  Pelagius  that 
he  eliminated  divine  grace  from  our  lives,  he  replied  that  grace  was 
given  to  men  only  in  order  that  they  might  accomplish  more  easily 

1  Retract.,  ii.  35.  2  Migne,  PL.,  xliii.  595  —  614;  Retract.,  ii.  34. 

3  Migne,  PL.,  xliii.  613 — 650;  Retract.,  ii.  39. 

4  Migne,  PL.,  xliii.  651 — 690;  Retract.,  ii.  40.  5  Migne,  PL.,  xliii.  689—698. 
6  Known  only  from  Retract.,  ii.  46.        7  Migne,  PL.,  xliii.  697 — 706;  Retract.,  ii.  51. 

8  Migne,  PL.,  xliii.   707 — 752;  Retract.,  ii.   59. 

9  Migne,  PL.,  xliii.   753 — 758  10  John  vi.  66.  u  John  xv.   5 


486  SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

what,  in  its  absence,  they  were  still  competent  to  accomplish  by 
nature.  Pelagius  contended,  therefore,  that  man  could  fulfil  all  the 
commandments  of  God  without  the  grace  of  God,  although  it  would 
be  more  difficult  for  him  to  do  so.  According  to  the  Pelagians,  that 
divine  grace  without  which  we  can  do  no  good  is  simply  the  free 
will  of  man,  the  natural  gift  of  God  bestowed  on  man  without  any 
previous  merit  on  his  part.  God  does  aid  us,  but  through  His  law 
and  His  doctrine,  by  which  means  we  learn  what  we  ought  to  do 
and  what  we  ought  to  hope  for.  There  is  no  such  thing,  however, 
as  a  gift  of  the  Spirit  of  God  by  which  we  are  enabled  to  do  that 
which  we  otherwise  have  recognized  it  to  be  our  duty  to  do.  The 
Pelagians  also  reject  the  prayers  which  the  Church  offers  up,  either 
for  unbelievers  and  the  conversion  of  those  who  resist  divine  teach- 
ing, or  for  the  faithful  that  their  faith  may  increase  and  they  may 
be  preserved  therein;  these  gifts,  they  say,  are  not  imparted  by 
God  to  men;  they  are  in  our  own  power,  for  that  grace  of  God 
which  frees  us  from  our  sins  is  given  to  us  according  to  the  mea- 
sure of  our  own  merits.  It  is  true  that  Pelagius  denied  this  principle 
in  presence  of  his  judges,  the  bishops  of  Palestine  (Synods  of  Jeru- 
salem and  Diospolis,  in  415),  but  he  did  so  only  in  order  to  escape 
condemnation;  he  continued  to  advocate  this  teaching  in  his  later 
writings.  They  also  maintain  that  the  life  of  the  just  here  below  is 
quite  free  from  sin,  and  that  it  is  such  just  souls  who  constitute  the 
Church  of  Christ  on  this  earth;  in  this  way  the  Church  is,  indeed, 
without  spot  or  stain K  As  though  it  were  not  the  Church  of  Christ 
throughout  the  entire  world  which  prays  to  God :  Dimitte  nobis 
debita  nostra!2  The  Pelagians  deny  also  that  little  children  are  sub- 
ject to  the  old  death  by  reason  of  their  descent  from  Adam;  on 
the  contrary,  they  are  born  free  from  all  taint  of  original  sin,  so 
that  there  is  in  them  nothing  that  a  second  birth  could  remit; 
through  baptism  they  merely  acquire  membership  in  the  kingdom 
of  God,  but  no  internal  renovation  or  freedom  from  guilt  and  its 
punishment;  even  if  not  baptized,  they  would  nevertheless  have  a 
life  of  eternal  felicity,  though  not  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  Adam 
himself,  they  said,  would  have  died,  even  if  he  had  not  sinned; 
when  his  death  did  occur,  it  was  not  a  punishment  (of  his  sin)  but 
a  result  of  nature.  —  Augustine  began  his  long  conflict  against  this 
heresy  with  a  work  in  three  books  written  in  412:  De  peccatorum 
mentis  et  remissione  et  de  baptismo  parvulorum  ad  Marcellinum 3. 
It  is  in  the  first  of  these  books  that  are  found  the  loci  classici  for 
the  teaching  of  Augustine  on  the  nature  of  sanctifying  grace.  At 
the  end  of  412  followed:   De  spiritu   et  littera  ad  Marcellinum  liber 


1  Cf.  Eph.  v.  27.  2  Mt.  vi.   12. 

3  Migne,  PL.,  xliv.    109—200;  Retract,  ii.  33. 


§    94-      ST-    AUGUSTINE.  487 

unus1,  in  which  he  defends  the  necessity  of  internal  grace  (spiritus) 
as  distinguished  from  the  external  grace  of  the  law  (littera),  in  order 
to  facer e  et perficere  iustitiam* .  In:  De  natura  et  gratia,  adTimasium 
et  Jacobum,  contra  Pelagium  liber  unus,  written  in  415,  he  refuted 
the  work  of  Pelagius  De  natura  3.  Ad  episcopos  Eutropium  et  Paulum 
epistola  sive  Liber  de  perfectione  iustitiae  hominis4,  was  written  at 
the  end  of  415,  against  the  work  entitled  Definitiones  and  current 
under  the  name  of  Caelestius.  The:  De  gestis  Pelagii,  ad  Aurelium 
episcopum,  liber  unus,  written  at  the  end  of  417,  summarizes  the  dis- 
cussions of  the  Synod  of  Diospolis  (415)  in  the  matter  of  Pelagianism  5. 
De  gratia  Christi  et  de  peccato  originali,  contra  Pelagium  et  Caelestium, 
libri  duo6,  were  written  in  418;  in  the  beginning  of  419  he  wrote: 
De  nuptiis  et  consupiscentia,  adValerium  Comitem,  libri  duo7;  towards 
the  end  of  the  same  year:  De  anima  et  eius  origine  libri  quatuor8; 
in  420  or  a  little  after:  Contra  duas  epistolas  Pelagianorum  ad  Boni- 
facium  Romanae  Ecclesiae  episcopum,  libri  quatuor9;  in  421  or  a 
little  after:  Contra  Julianum  haeresis  Pelagianae  defensorem  libri  sex10. 
This  work  is  a  very  close  refutation  of  the  Libri  IV  ad  Turbantium 
episcopum  adversus  Augustini  librum  primum  de  nuptiis  et  con- 
cupiscentia,  published  by  Julian  of  Eclanum  in  419  or  420  (§  74,  12). 
Apropos  of  a  letter  of  Augustine  written  in  418  n  some  monks  of 
Adrumetum  began,  about  424,  a  controversy  concerning  the  relations 
of  divine  grace  and  the  free  will  of  man.  For  their  instruction  and 
pacification  Augustine  wrote  about  426  or  427  two  works:  De  gratia 
et  libero  arbitrio  ad  Valentinum  et  cum  illo  monachos  liber  unus12, 
and :  De  correptione  et  gratia  ad  eumdem  Valentinum  et  cum  illo 
monachos  Hadrumeticos  liber  unus  vs.  These  discussions  at  Adrumetum 
were  the  prelude  of  Semipelagianism,  which  soon  found  a  home  in 
Southern  Gaul,  especially  in  the  isles  of  Lerins  and  in  the  vicinity 
of  Marseilles,  where  its  defenders  were  both  numerous  and  energetic. 
Augustine  was  informed  of  this  movement  by  two  Gauls,  Prosper  and 
Hilarius;  his  two  works  addressed  to  these  correspondents  in  428 
or  429  are  really  one,  and  contain  a  complete  description  and  defence 
of  his  teachings  concerning  divine  grace:  De  praedestinatione  sanc- 
torum liber  ad  Prosperum  et  Hilarium  primus 14,  and :  De  dono  per- 
severantiae    liber    ad    Prosperum    et   Hilarium   secundus15.      He   was 

1  Migne,  PL.,  xliv.   201  —  246.  2  Retract.,  ii.   37. 

3  Migne,  PL.,  xliv.   247 — 290;  Retract.,  ii.  42. 

4  Migne,  PL.,  xliv.  291—318.  5  Ib.,  xliv.  319 — 360;  Retract.,  ii.  47. 

6  Migne,  PL.,  xliv.  359  —  410;  Retract.,  ii.   50. 

7  Migne,  PL.,  xliv.  413 — 474;  Retract.,  ii.   53. 

8  Migne,  PL.,  xliv.  475  —  548;  Retract.,  ii.   56. 

9  Migne,  PL.,  xliv.  549—638;  Retract.,  ii.  61. 

10  Migne,  PL.,  xliv.  641—874;  Retract.,  ii.  62. 

11  Ep.   194,  ad  Sixtum  Romanum.  n  Migne,  PL.,  xliv.  881 — 912. 

13  Ib.,  xlix.  915—946;  cf.  Retract.,  ii.  66—67. 

14  Migne,  PL.,  xliv.  959—992.  15  lb.,  xlv.  993—1034. 


488  SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

compelled  to  enter  the  arena  once  more  by  a  new  work  of  Julian : 
Libri  VIII  ad  Florum  episcopum  ad  versus  Augustini  librum  secundum 
de  nuptiis  et  concupiscentia.  The  exhaustive  reply  of  our  Saint 
follows  Julian  step  by  step;  it  was  destined,  however,  to  remain  un- 
finished: Contra  secundam  Juliani  responsionem  imperfectum  opus 
sex  libros  complectens 1.  In  the  tenth  volume  of  the  Benedictine 
edition  there  were  published  as  an  appendix  to  these  anti-Pelagian 
writings  of  Augustine  three  works  entitled:  Hypomnesticon  contra 
Pelagianos  et  Caelestianos 2 ,  probably  written  by  Marius  Mercator 
(§95,1),  De  praedestinatione  et  gratia  suspecti  auctoris  liber3,  and: 
De  praedestinatione  Dei  libellus  ignoti  auctoris4.  —  Anti- Avian 
writings:  In  418  an  anonymous  summary  of  Arian  doctrine  (quidam 
sermo  Arianorum  sine  nomine  auctoris  sui)  was  sent  by  a  friendly 
hand  to  Augustine  with  a  request  for  its  refutation5.  His  criticism, 
to  which  he  prefixed  the  entire  text  of  the  Arian  work,  is  entitled: 
Contra  sermonem  Arianorum  liber  unus6.  In  427  or  428  a  public 
disputation  between  Augustine  and  Maximinus,  an  Arian  bishop,  took 
place  at  Hippo.  We  have  the  outcome  of  Augustine's  part  in  its 
proceedings  in  the:  Collatio  cum  Maximino  Arianorum  episcopo7. 
The  Arian  bishop  consumed  the  allotted  time  with  his  lengthy  dis- 
course, so  that  Augustine  could  only  reply  by  the  publication  of  his 
work :  Contra  Maximinum  haereticum  Arianorum  episcopum  libri  duo  8. 
8.  EXEGETICAL  WRITINGS.  —  Among  the  exegetical  works  of 
St.  Augustine  the  most  important  is  his :  De  doctrina  Christiana,  begun 
about  397  and  finished  about  426  s.  He  tells  us  in  the  beginning 
of  the  first  book  that  he  wrote  it  in  order  to  elucidate  two  questions 
that  were  the  foundations  of  all  biblical  science,  i.  e.  how  to  in- 
vestigate the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures,  and  how  to  make  it  known 
to  the  faithful:  Duae  sunt  res  quibus  nititur  omnis  tractatio  Scrip- 
turarum,  modus  inveniendi  quae  intelligenda  sunt  et  modus  proferendi 
quae  intellecta  sunt.  The  three  books  of  the  first  part  may,  therefore, 
be  called  Biblical  Hermeneutics ;  in  the  fourth  book,  or  second  part, 
he  deals  with  the  principles  of  Christian  Homiletics.  Already  before 
his  ordination  to  the  priesthood  he  had  begun  a  controversial  ex- 
position of  Genesis:  De  Genesi  contra  Manichaeos  (see  no.  5).  At 
a  later  date  he  grew  dissatisfied  with  this  production;  it  seemed  to 
him  that  he  had  paid  too  little  attention  to  the  literal  sense  of  the 
biblical  text:  quoniam  secundum  allegoricam  significationem  Scrip- 
turae  verba  tractaveram,  non  ausus  naturalium  rerum  tanta  secreta 
ad  litteram  exponere  10.    About  393  he  undertook  to  treat  the  same 

1  Migne,  PL.,  xlv.   1049— 1608.  2  Ib.,  xlv.    161 1  — 1664. 

3  Ib.,  xlv.    1665  — 1678.              4  Ib.,  xlv.    1677—1680.              5  Retract.,   ii.   52. 

6  Migne,  PL.,  xlii.   677—708.  »  Ib.,  xlii.   709—742. 

8  Ib.,  xlii.,   743—814.               9  Mi  pL     xxxiv     I5_I22;  Retract.,   ii.   4. 
10  Retract.,  i.   18. 


§    94-      ST.    AUGUSTINE.  489 

subject  in  a  new  work  but  gave  it  up  in  consequence  of  the  great 
difficulty  of  the  subject:  in  Scripturis  exponendis  tirocinium  meum 
sub  tanta  sarcinae  mole  succubuit1.  He  did  not  get  beyond  the 
rough  sketch  which  he  entitled :  De  Genesi  ad  litteram  imperfectus 
liber2.  About  400  he  devoted  the  last  three  books  of  the  Con- 
fessiones  to  the  creation-narrative  of  Genesis  (see  no.  3).  Finally, 
during  the  years  401  —  415,  he  produced:  De  Genesi  ad  litteram 
libri  duodecim3;  this  work  does  not  get  beyond  the  expulsion  of 
Adam  from  Paradise,  and  contains  more  questions  than  answers: 
Plura  quaesita  quam  inventa  sunt  et  eorum  quae  inventa  sunt  pauciora 
firmata,  cetera  vero  ita  posita  velut  adhuc  requirenda  sint4.  To  the 
exposition  of  the  Heptateuch  (the  five  books  of  Moses,  with  Josue 
and  Judges)  he  dedicated  about  419  two  works:  Locutionum  libri 
septem5,  and:  Quaestionum  in  Heptateuchum  libri  septem6;  the  first 
illustrative  of  unusual  terms  or  phrases  in  the  Latin  text  of  Scrip- 
ture, the  second  explanatory  of  such  passages  as  contain  a  difficulty  7. 
The:  Adnotationum  in  Job  liber  unus8,  contains  disconnected  marginal 
notes  of  the  Saint  on  the  book  of  Job,  unintelligently  compiled  about 
400  by  an  unknown  hand 9.  Enarrationes  in  Psalmos  is  the  title  of 
a  series  of  very  beautiful  and  deeply  spiritual  homilies  on  all  the 
Psalms,  written  at  divers  times :  some  of  them  were  never  delivered 
orally;  they  fill  one  large  folio  in  the  Benedictine  edition10.  In  the: 
De  consensu  evangelistarum  libri  quatuor,  written  about  400,  he 
discusses  and  explains  pretended  contradictions  in  the  four  Gospel- 
narratives  n.  Separate  texts  of  Matthew  (book  1)  and  Luke  (book  2) 
are  explained  in :  Quaestionum  evangeliorum  libri  duo,  written  about 
the  same  time12.  About  393  he  wrote:  De  sermone  Domini  in  monte 
secundum  Matthaeum  libri  duo 13.  The:  Quaestionum  septemdecim  in 
evangelium  secundum  Matthaeum  liber  unusu,  is  a  spurious  work. 
In  Johannis  evangelium  tractatus  CXXIV 15,  and :  In  epistolam  Johannis 
ad  Parthos  (Ep.  I.  Joh.)  tractatus  x16,  are  homilies  delivered  about  416 
and  committed  to  writing  by  the  author  himself.  On  the  epistles 
of  St.  Paul  there  are  extant  three  brief  treatises:  Expositio  qua- 
rumdam  propositionum  ex  epistola  ad  Romanos17,  Epistolae  ad 
Romanos  inchoata  expositio18,    Epistolae  ad  Galatas  expositio19,    all 

1  lb.  2  Migne,  PL.,  xxxiv.  219 — 246.  3  Ib.,  xxxiv.   245 — 486. 

4  Retract.,  ii.   24.  5  Migne,  xxxiv.  485 — 546. 

6  Ib.,  xxxiv.   547 — 824.  7  Retract.,   ii.   54  55. 

8  Migne,  PL.,  xxxiv.  825—886.  9  Retract.,  ii.   13. 

10  Migne,  PL.,  xxxvi — xxxvii. 

11  Ib.,  xxxiv.    1 04 1  — 1230;  Retract.,  ii.   16. 

12  Migne,  PL.,  xxxv.   132 1 — 1364;  Retract.,  ii.   12. 

13  Migne,  PL.,  xxxiv.   1229  — 1308;  Retract.,  i.   19. 

14  Migne,  PL.,  xxxv.    1365 — 1376.  15  lb.,  xxxv.    1379—1976- 
16  Ib.,  xxxv.    1977 — 2062.              u  Ib.,  xxxv.  2063 — 2088. 

18  Ib.,  xxxv.  2087 — 2106.  19  Ib.,  xxxv.   2105—2148. 


490 


SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 


three  written  about  394 1.  An :  Expositio  epistolae  Jacobi,  has  perished  2. 
The :  Expositio  in  Apocalypsim  b.  Johannis,  current  under  the  name 
of  Augustine3,  is  not  his  work;  and  the  same  is  to  be  said  of  the 
diffuse:  Quaestiones  Veteris  et  Novi  Testamenti4.  We  have  already 
mentioned  (no.  4)  three  genuine  works  Quaestiones,  partly  dogmatic  and 
partly  exegetical.  —  Augustine  was  ignorant  of  Hebrew,  and  from 
some  of  his  expressions  it  has  often  been  inferred  that  he  was  also 
ignorant  of  Greek :  Graecae  linguae  perparum  assecutus  sum  et  prope 
nihil 5.  Nevertheless,  countless  other  passages  of  his  works  show  that 
he  could  read  and  understand  Greek  texts,  perhaps  with  some  diffi- 
culty and  loss  of  time.  In  general  he  uses  a  Latin  version  of  the 
Bible,  usually  the  one  long  current  in  Africa;  at  times  he  makes 
use  also  of  the  Hieronymian  version,  but  whenever  the  meaning  of 
the  Latin  text  is  difficult  or  dubious,  he  has  recourse  to  the  Greek. 
The  first  principle  of  his  hermeneutics 6  is  the  necessity  of  ascertain- 
ing of  the  true  literal  sense,  and  to  this  principle  he  remains  faith- 
ful, particularly  in  his  works  of  scientific  exegesis.  In  his  homilies, 
however,  e.  g. :  Enarrationes  in  Psalmos,  Tractatus  in  evangelium 
Johannis,  In  Ep.  I.  Johannis,  he  is  thoroughly  at  home  only  in  the 
broader  field  of  mystic  and  allegorical  exegesis.  On  all  points  of 
Christian  faith  and  morals  he  finds  the  Old  Testament  a  witness 
only  a  little  less  outspoken  than  the  New  Testament,  and  he  selects 
the  texts  of  his  homilies  as  readily  from  the  Psalms  as  from  the 
Gospels.  It  is  Augustine  who  first  put  forth  the  idea  of  a  multiplex 
sensus  literalis.  He  maintains,  or  at  least  surmises,  that,  whatever 
truth  can  be  found  in  a  phrase  of  Holy  Scripture,  was  then  and 
there  intended  by  the  sacred  writer  or  rather  by  the  Holy  Spirit7. 
Were  this  true,  a  scientific  exegesis  of  Scripture  would  be  impossible; 
Augustine  puts  it  forth  only  as  his  own  opinion,  and  one  not  shared 
by  the  majority  of  his  contemporaries;  very  often,  moreover,  he 
tacitly  abandons  it.  In  the  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  he  con- 
siders the  authority  of  the  Church  as  the  highest  rule  and  criterion 
both  in  theory  and  practice :  Consulat  (interpres)  regulam  fidei  quam 
de  Scripturarum  planioribus  locis  et  ecclesiae  auctoritate  percepit8; 
quaerendi  dubitatio  catholicae  fidei  metas  non  debet  excedere9.  In 
the  Scriptures  there  can  be  found  no  other  teaching  than  that  of 
the  Church:  Non  autem  praecipit  Scriptura  nisi  caritatem  .  .  .  non 
autem  asserit  nisi  catholicam  fidem10.      The   heretic  interprets  incor- 

1  Retract.,  i.  23—25.  2  Ib.,  ii.  32. 

3  Migne,  PL.,  xxxv.  2417—2452.  4  Ib.,  xxxv.   2213— 2416;  cf.  §  90,    10. 

5  Contra  litteras  Petiliani,  ii.   38,  91;  cf.  De  trink.,  iii.,  prooem.    1. 

6  De  doctrina  Christiana,  i — iii. 

7  Conf.,  xii.  31,  42;  De  doctrina  christ.,   iii.   27,   38. 

8  De  doctrina  christ.,  iii.   2,   2.  9  De  Gen.  ad  litt,  imperf.,  i.    1. 
10  De  doctrina  christ.,  iii.   10,    15. 


§    94-      ST.    AUGUSTINE.  49 1 

rectly  the  Scripture  because  he  is  a  heretic,  and  not  vice  versa: 
Multi  haeretici  ad  suam  sententiam  quae  praeter  fidem  est  catholicae 
disciplinae,  expositionem  Scripturarum  divinarum  trahere  consue- 
verunt1.  He  insists  constantly  on  the  inspired  character  and  canonical 
dignity  of  the  biblical  books;  he  defends  their  inerrancy  with  special 
energy  in  the  De  consensu  evangelistarum  and  in  the  above-mentioned 
controversy  with  St.  Jerome  (§  93,  5);  in  these  letters  to  Jerome  are 
found  the  oft  repeated  words :  if  once  an  officious  lie  is  admitted  in 
the  Scripture,  no  sentence  of  it  will  be  guarded  from  a  similar  ac- 
cusation (admisso  enim  semel  in  tantum  auctoritatis  fastigium  officioso 
aliquo  mendacio,  nulla  illorum  librorum  particula  remanebit,  quae 
non  ...  ad  mentientis  auctoris  consilium  officiumque  referatur)2. 
Apparent  errors  in  the  Bible  result  either  from  defects  in  the  manu- 
scripts, or  from  mistakes  of  the  translators,  or  from  the  imperfect 
intelligence  of  the  reader:  si  aliquid  in  eis  offendero  Uteris  quod 
videatur  contrarium  veritati,  nihil  aliud  quam  vel  mendosum  esse 
codicem,  vel  interpretem  non  assecutum  esse  quod  dictum  est,  vel 
me  minime  intellexisse  non  ambigam 3. 

9.  WORKS  OF  MORAL  AND  PRACTICAL  THEOLOGY.  —  The  popular 
instruction:  De  agone  christiano4,  was  written  about  396  or  397,  in 
order  to  show  the  Christian  how  he  might  overcome  evil  by  faith5. 
Towards  the  end  of  his  life,  perhaps  in  427,  he  made  up  from  the 
Old  and  the  New  Testament  a  book  of  moral  precepts ;  he  intended 
it  to  be  a  mirror  of  Christian  morality,  hence  the  name  of:  Speculum; 
it  begins  with  the  words :  Quis  ignorat 6.  In  its  original  form  the  texts 
of  Scripture  or  testimonia  were  quoted  from  the  Old-Itala  version, 
but  in  the  extant  manuscripts  corresponding  texts  from  the  Hierony- 
mian  version  have  been  very  frequently  substituted.  He  has  been 
wrongly  credited,  even  quite  recently,  with  the  authorship  of  another 
very  similar  work,  the:  Liber  de  divinis  scripturis  sive  Speculum;  it 
begins  with  Audi  Israhel,  and  was  first  published  by  H.  Vignier  in 
1654;  it  is  not  found  in  the  Benedictine  edition  and  is  therefore 
lacking  in  Migne.  Two  other  works,  each  entitled:  Speculum  or 
Speculum  peccatoris7,  are  universally  rejected  as  spurious.  The  ap- 
pendix to  the  sixth  volume  of  the  Benedictine  edition  contains  many 
other  spurious  ascetico-moral  writings.  The:  De  Vita  Christiana8,  is 
distinctly  Pelagian  in  tone;  perhaps  it  is  a  work  of  Pelagius  himself 
(see  no.  16).  The:  Liber  exhortationis,  vulgo  de  salutaribus  docu- 
mentis9,  belongs  to  St.  Paulinus  of  Aquileia  (§  6j,  11).  In  two 
genuine  works  Augustine  discusses  the  nature  and  the  reprehensibility 

1  De  Gen.  ad  litt,  imperf.,  Li.  2  P3p.  28,   3,   3. 

3  Ep.  82,   1,  3;  cf.  Contra  Faustum  Man.,  xi.   5. 

4  Migne,  PL.,  xl.  289 — 310.  5  Retract.,  ii.   3. 

6  Migne,   PL.,  xxxiv.  887 — 1040.      7  Ib.,  xl.  967—984;  983—992. 
8  Ib.,  xl.  1031  — 1046.      9  Ib.,  xl.  1047 — 1078. 


492  SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

of  lying:  De  mendacio1,  written  about  395,  and:  Contra  mendacium2, 
written  about  420.  The  former  was  a  hasty  composition,  and  later 
on  satisfied  its  author  so  little  that  he  regretted  its  publication 3.  He 
expended  all  the  more  industry  on  the  second  work  in  which  he 
teaches  ex  professo  the  illicit  character  of  a  lie  under  any  circum- 
stances4. The  little  treatises:  De  continentia5,  written  about  395, 
and:  De  patientia6,  written  probably  before  418,  are  homiletic  dis- 
courses. De  bono  coniugali7,  and:  De  sancta  virginitate8,  were  written 
about  401,  in  reply  to  Jovinian's  denunciation  of  celibacy.  It  was  said 
that  in  his  reply  to  Jovinian  (Adversus  Jovinianum;  §  93,  7)  Jerome 
had  exalted  virginity  at  the  expense  of  matrimony:  Jactabatur  Jovi- 
niano  responderi  non  potuisse  cum  laude,  sed  cum  vituperatione 
nuptiarum9.  To  avoid  this  charge,  Augustine  begins  by  placing  in 
their  true  light  the  institution  of  marriage  and  its  dignity;  he  is  able, 
there  after,  to  treat  of  virginity  with  more  freedom  and  security10. 
The  superiority  of  the  widowed  estate  to  matrimony  is  the  subject 
of:  De  bono  viduitatis  liber  seu  Epistola  ad  Julianam  viduam11,  written 
about  414.  His  work:  De  opere  monachorum12,  exercised  a  very 
great  influence:  in  it  he  maintained  that  according  to  the  Holy 
Scriptures  monks  should  labor  with  their  hands  13.  —  The :  De  doc- 
trina  Christiana  (see  no.  8),  offers  in  its  second  part  a  treatise  of 
pastoral  theology;  the  fourth  book,  as  already  indicated,  is  really 
the  earliest  attempt  at  systematic  Homiletics.  Similarly,  the  earliest 
theory  of  catechetic  instruction  is  his:  De  catechizandis  rudibus14, 
written  about  400  at  the  request  of  Deogratias,  a  deacon  of  Carthage. 
We  have  to  regret  the  loss  of  his  work:  Contra  Hilarum,  in  defence 
of  the  ecclesiastical  custom  at  Carthage :  ut  hymni  ad  altare  dicerentur 
de  Psalmorum  libro,  sive  ante  oblationem,  sive  cum  distribueretur 
populo  quod  fuisset  oblatum15. 

10.  SERMONS,  LETTERS,  POEMS.  —  Apart  from  his  biblical  Enar- 
rationes  and  Tractatus  (see  no.  8)  numerous  Sermones  have  always 
been  current  under  his  name.  The  fifth  volume  of  the  Benedictine 
edition16  contains  three  hundred  and  sixty-three  Sermones  that  are 
undoubtedly  genuine,  divided  into  four  groups:  Sermones  de  scrip- 
turis  Veteris  et  Novi  Testamenti  (1— 183),  Sermones  de  tempore  (184 
to  272),  Sermones  de  Sanctis  (273—340),  Sermones  de  diversis  (341 
to  363).  They 'were  either  dictated  by  Augustine  himself  after  he 
had  preached  them,  or  were  written  down  in  the  church  by  others. 
Next  in  order  are  certain  Sermones  dubii  (364—395),  also:  Sermonum 

1  Migne,  PL.,  xl.  487-518.  2  lb,  xl.   517—548.  3  Retract,  i.   27. 

4  lb,  ii.  60.  5  Migne,  PL,  xl.  349— 372.  6  lb,  xl.  611—626. 

lb,  xl.  373—396.  8  lb,  xl.  397—428.  9  Retract,   ii.   22. 

1  lb,  ii.  23.  »  Migne,  PL,  xl.  429—450.  12  lb,  xl,   547—582. 

3  Retract,  ii.  21.  1*  Migne,  PL,  xl.  309—348;  Retract,   ii.    14. 

15  Retract,  ii.   11.  ie  Migne,  PL,  xxxviii— xxxix. 


§    94-      ST.    AUGUSTINE.  493 

quorumdam  qui  adhuc  desiderantur  fragmenta,  and :  Sermones  sup- 
posititii  (i — 317).  Other  discourses  (Tractatus,  Sermones)  are  found 
elsewhere  in  the  Benedictine  edition,  among  the  correlated  works  of 
the  Saint;  we  have  already  mentioned  many  of  them  among  his 
apologetic,  dogmatic,  dogmatico-polemical  and  theologico-moral  writ- 
ings. Since  the  appearance  of  the  Benedictine  edition  many  new 
sermons  of  St.  Augustine  have  been  published,  by  Denis  *,  Fontani 2, 
Frangipane 3,  and  others,  but  most  of  these  are  either  unquestionably 
spurious  or  at  least  of  very  doubtful  authenticity.  Augustine  is  the 
foremost  ecclesiastical  orator  of  the  patristic  epoch,  a  judgment  that 
accords  perfectly  with  his  personal  appreciation  of  his  worth :  Mihi 
prope  semper  sermo  meus  displicet4.  He  always  seeks  some  better 
expression,  one  that  is  clearer  and  larger;  the  words  just  spoken 
always  fail  to  convey  his  thoughts  and  emotions  satisfactorily.  We 
have  compared  elsewhere  (§  74,  11)  the  oratorical  style  of  Augustine 
with  that  of  Chrysostom.  It  may  be  added  here  that  the  earlier 
sermons  of  Augustine  are  more  rhetorical  and  polished,  while  his 
later  sermons  excel  in  compactness  of  expression,  logical  power  and 
unadorned  simplicity.  —  His  letters  number  two  hundred  and  seventy 
in  the  second  volume  of  the  Benedictine  edition ;  a  fragment  of  a  letter 
is  published  at  the  end  of  the  third  Benedictine  volume5.  Among 
these  two  hundred  and  seventy  letters  are  fifty-three  addressed  to 
Augustine  or  some  of  his  friends.  It  is  also  to  be  noted  that  letters 
of  Augustine  are  scattered  through  the  various  volumes  of  the  Bene- 
dictine edition  (see  nos.  6  7  9),  as  in  the  second  (Benedictine) 
volume  letters  are  found  that  Augustine  himself  made  public  as 
treatises6.  Two  letters  unknown  to  the  Benedictine  editors  were  dis- 
covered and  published  by  Abbot  Gottfried  von  Göttweig  (f  1749)7, 
and  Goldbacher  published  lately  two  hitherto  unknown  letters  of 
Augustine.  His  correspondence  covers  a  period  of  more  than  forty 
years  (386/387 — 429),  and  varies  considerably  in  importance.  It 
contains  but  few  letters  of  a  purely  friendly  or  intimate  character; 
most  of  the  letters  deal  with  philosophical  and  theological  problems, 
and  are  usually  direct  replies  to  questions  sent  him;  in  other  letters 
he  appears  as  the  Christian  pastor,  urging  his  correspondents  to  a 
higher  moral  life,  or  as  their  counsellor  in  matters  of  conscience,  or 
again  as  their  consoler  in  the  hour  of  trial  or  misfortune ;  some  of 
his  letters  are  merely  official  communications,  written  in  the  name 
of  synods,  and  often  concerning  the  above-mentioned  schisms  and 
heresies.    The  Psalmus  contra  partem  Donati  has  already  been  men- 


1  Ib.,  xlvi.   813  —  940.  2  Ib.,  xlvii.    1113 — 1140. 

3  Ib.,  xlvi.  939 — 1004.  4  De  catech.  rud.,   2,   3. 

5  Migne,  PL.,  xxxiii ;   cf.  Ib.,   751 — 752. 

6  Retract.,  ii.  31,  apropos  of  Ep.   102. 

7  Migne,  PL.,  xxxiii.   789—792  929 — 938. 


494 


SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 


tioned  (no.  6)  as  a  poetical  effusion  of  Augustine;  other  small  and 
insignificant  metrical  pieces  have  been  preserved  among  his  works, 
II.  REVIEW  OF  THE  WORKS  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE.  —  None  of  the 
other  Latin  Fathers  has  left  so  many  and  so  large  works  as  Augu- 
stine; among  the  Greek  Fathers  only  Chrysostom  has  contributed  so 
much  to  ecclesiastical  literature.  Possidius,  the  earliest  biographer  of 
Augustine,  says :  Tanta  autem  ab  eodem  dictata  et  edita  sunt  tanta- 
que  in  ecclesia  disputata,  excepta  atque  emendata  .  .  .,  ut  ea  omnia 
vix  quisquam  studiosorum  perlegere  et  nosse  sufnciat1.  The  style 
of  Augustine  is  very  attractive :  he  is  unusually  skilful  and  ready  in 
the  expression  of  his  thoughts;  he  positively  fascinates  us  by  the 
ability  with  which  he  depicts  the  various  thoughts  and  emotions  of 
his  soul.  His  latinity  bears  the  impress  of  his  own  time ;  usually  his 
diction  is  noble  and  choice,  but  in  his  popular  sermons  and  works 
he  condescends  to  use  the  language  of  the  people.  Thus  in  the 
Enarrationes  in  Psalmos  he  affects  an  average  «barbarism»  of  speech, 
and  expressly  avoids  the  purism  of  the  «grammarians»  ;  here  are  his 
own  words:  Quid  ad  nos  quid  grammatici  velint?  Melius  in  barbarismo 
nostro  vos  intelligitis,  quam  in  nostra  disertitudine  vos  deserti  estis 2 ; 
potui  illud  dicere  cum  tracto  vobis;  saepe  enim  et  verba  non  latina 
dico  ut  vos  intelligatis 3 ;  melius  est  reprehendant  nos  grammatici 
quam  non  intelligant  populi4.  In  the  Psalmus  contra  partem  Donati 
he  deliberately  disregards  all  metrical  laws  that  he  may  not  be 
compelled  to  use  words  unfamiliar  to  the  multitude5;  the  work  De 
agone  christiano  was  purposely  written  in  the  language  of  the  people : 
humili  sermone6.  The  versatility  of  Augustine  is  evident  from  the 
mere  enumeration  of  the  titles  of  his  works;  and  we  have  also  in- 
dicated, as  occasion  offered,  their  special  value  and  bearing.  These 
writings  mirror  a  highly-gifted  personality,  a  heart  overflowing  with 
the  ardor  of  life  and  the  warmth  of  love,  a  mind  unparalleled  for 
logical  acuteness  and  speculative  depth.  If  Jerome  is  rightly  called 
the  most  erudite  of  the  Fathers,  Augustine  is  certainly  the  greatest, 
the  most  original  and  versatile.  He  unites  at  once  the  creative  power 
of  a  Tertullian  and  the  ecclesiastical  sentiments  of  a  Cyprian;  we 
find  in  him  the  practical  tact  of  the  Latins  and  the  intellectual  vi- 
vacity of  the  Greeks ;  his  mind  is  powerfully  attracted  to  the  obscure 
problems  of  theological  anthropology,  such  as  the  relations  of  man 
to  God,  reparation  and  re-union,  sin  and  grace.  In  this  department 
of  theology  he  towers  above  all  others  as  an  incomparable  master. 
Nevertheless,  he  does  not  develop  his  ideas  in  any  finished  and 
rounded  system.  He  tells  us  himself  that  the  necessities  of  a  cease- 
less controversy  induced,  or  rather  forced  him,  constantly  to  develop 

1  Vita  S.  Aug.,  c.   1 8.  2  Enarr.  in  Ps.  xxxvi  sermo  3,  6. 

:<  lb.,  in  Ps.  cxxiii.   8.  4  Ib.,  in  Ps.  cxxxviii.   20. 

"'  Retract,  i.  20.  6  Ib.,  ii.  3. 


§   94-     ST.    AUGUSTINE.  495 

and  reform  his  opinions  on  individual  questions:  Ego  proinde  fateor 
me  ex  eorum  numero  esse  conari,  qui  proficiendo  scribunt  et  scri- 
bendo  proficiunt1;  proficienter  me  existimo  Deo  miserante  scripsisse, 
non  tarnen  a  perfectione  coepisse2.  This  is  why  he  desires  that  his 
works  should  be  read  in  the  order  in  which  they  were  written:  In- 
veniet  enim  fortasse  quomodo  scribendo  profecerim,  quisquis  opuscula 
mea  ordine  quo  scripta  sunt  legerit3.  He  demands  likewise  that  his 
teachings  should  be  gathered  from  his  later  rather  than  from  his 
earlier  writings.  When  the  Semipelagians  appealed  to  those  earlier 
writings,  he  replied :  Non  sicut  legere  libros  meos,  ita  etiam  in  eis 
curaverunt  proficere  mecum4.  This  just  demand  of  our  Saint  was 
destined  to  be  more  than  once  ignored  in  the  ages  to  come.  It  was 
but  natural  that  a  man  like  Augustine  should  irresistibly  attract  his 
contemporaries  and  exercise  over  them  a  very  potent  influence.  His 
personal  authority  is  evident  from  the  collection  of  his  letters;  he 
seems  to  dominate  the  entire  Church,  or,  at  least,  the  entire  African 
Church,  and  to  guide  at  will  the  progressive  spirit  of  his  time.  People 
living  at  a  great  distance  take  the  liberty  of  sending  him  a  multitude 
of  questions  and  doubts:  Tu  me  innumerabilium  quaestionum  turba 
repente  circumvallandum  vel  potius  obruendum  putasti5.  The  world 
looked  on  him,  in  the  words  of  a  certain  Audax,  as  an  oracle  of 
the  law :  oraculum  legis 6,  from  whom  it  was  possible  to  learn  every- 
thing. Augustine  judged  of  himself  in  another  manner.  He  requests 
his  correspondents  not  only  to  read  him  leniently,  but  also  to  criticise 
him  frankly:  In  omnibus  litteris  meis  non  solum  pium  lectorem,  sed 
etiam  liberum  correctorem  desiderem7.  He  asks  them  to  follow  him 
only  when  they  are  convinced  that  he  has  written  the  truth :  Neminem 
velim  sic  amplecti  omnia  mea,  ut  me  sequatur,  nisi  in  iis  in  quibus 
me  non  errasse  perspexerit 8.  In  another  work9  he  says:  «the  errors 
of  this  work  are  mine;  to  God,  the  giver  of  all  good  gifts,  belongs 
what  is  true  and  pertinent  therein».  Posterity  has  ratified  the  judg- 
ment of  his  contemporaries;  he  still  passes  for  one  of  those  mighty 
spirits  that  appear  only  at  great  intervals  of  time,  but  are  destined 
to  influence  very  profoundly  the  destiny  of  humanity.  He  has  earned 
from  all  later  generations  the  title  of  a  Second  Paul,  a  Doctor  gratiae. 
No  Father  of  the  Church  has,  even  remotely,  so  magisterially  affected 
the  entire  later  course  of  philosophy  and  theology,  as  Augustine  did. 
With  princely  generosity  he  scattered  along  his  way  ideas  in  which 
later  thinkers  found  the  materials  for  entire  systems  of  doctrine;  his 
words  were  often  the  origin  of  dogmatic  controversies  that  have 
agitated  powerfully  more  than  one  generation  of  mankind.    Ecclesia- 

1  Ep.    143,   2.  2  De  dono  persev.,  xxi.   55.  3  Retract.,  Prol.   3. 

4  De  praed.  sanct.,  iv.  8.  5  Ep.    1 18,    I,    1.  6  Ep.   260. 

7  De  trink.,  iii ;  Prooem.   2.  . 8  De  dono  persev.,  xxi.   55. 

9  De  vera  religione,  ix.    1 7. 


4Q(5  SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

stical  authority,  both  conciliar  and  pontifical,  has  always  reckoned 
him  among  the  chief  doctors  of  the  Church;  it  has  declared  that 
particularly  in  the  matters  of  divine  grace,  its  nature,  necessity  and 
gratuitous  character,  his  writings  are  a  faithful  reflection  of  the  teach- 
ings of  the  Church.  The  decrees  of  the  second  Council  of  Orange 
(529),  condemnatory  of  Semipelagianism,  are  nearly  all  taken  verbally 
from  the  writings  of  Augustine  or  from  the  collections  of  pertinent 
«sententiae»  extracted  from  his  writings  by  Prosper  of  Aquitania 
(§  95,  3);  but  it  must  be  noted,  however,  that  the  Church  has  never 
made  her  own  the  entire  teaching  of  Augustine  concerning  grace 
and  predestination. 

12.  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE.  —  Augustine  was  a 
Platonist,  as  were  most  of  the  Christian  thinkers  of  antiquity;  his 
Platonism,  however,  was  colored  by  the  new  religion  and  was  filled 
with  its  spirit.  In  his  eyes  Plato  is  the  foremost  of  all  pre-Christian 
philosophers1.  In  the  same  place  he  declares  Aristotle  a:  vir  excel- 
lentis  ingenii  et  eloquio  Platoni  quidem  impar,  sed  multos  facile 
superans2.  Among  the  Neoplatonists  he  distinguishes  Plotinus,  Jam- 
blichus,  Porphyrius,  and  Apuleius3.  It  is  the  Platonists  who  came 
nearest  to  the  true  philosophy,  which  is  that  of  Christianity:  Nulli 
nobis,  quam  isti,  propius  accesserunt 4.  Seeking  after  God  they  rightly 
rose  above  the  world  of  sense,  above  the  soul  and  the  changeful 
realm  of  spirits :  Cuncta  corpora  transscenderunt  quaerentes  Deum  .  .  . 
omnem  animam  mutabilesque  omnes  spiritus  transscenderunt  quae- 
rentes summum  Deum5.  —  His  Christian  Platonism  manifests  itself 
particularly  in  his  demonstration  of  the  existence  of  God.  He  gives 
a  great  many  proofs  of  this  doctrine6,  sometimes  from  the  external 
and  visible  world,  its  mutability  and  its  order;  sometimes  from  the 
nature  of  the  human  soul,  the  mutability  of  human  intelligence,  the 
voice  of  conscience,  the  desire  of  happiness;  more  frequently,  however, 
and  with  evident  predilection  from  certain  original  immutable  truths 
natural  to  the  soul  of  man.  By  these  truths  he  understands  those 
fundamental  principles  of  reason  or  intelligence,  the  absolute  necessity 
and  universality  of  which  show  that  they  have  not  been  derived  a 
posteriori  from  human  experience,  but  that  they  are  dialectical, 
mathematical,  ethical  and  aesthetic  axioms,  which  dominate  the  human 
mind  with  luminous  strength  and  imperious  majesty:  supreme  and 
changeless  rules,  according  to  which  we  judge  things  to  be  true  or 
false,  good  or  bad,  beautiful  or  ugly.  From  these  truths  Augustine 
concludes  that  God  exists;  it  is  true  that  he  frequently  seems  to 
identify  them  with  the  divine  essence  itself.  He  often  uses  such 
phrases  as  the  following:  God  is  the  light  in  which  we  see  all  im- 
mutable  truths,    God    enlightens   all   minds,    God    is   the   innermost 

1  De  civ.  Dei,  viii.  4  ff.  2  lb#j   viiL    I2  3  lb 

4  Ib.,  viii.   5.  *  Ib#|  viii>  6  6  Conf  ^  x    6_27   g_3g 


§  94-    ST-  augustine.  497 

teacher  of  the  soul,  and  the  like.  These  expressions  easily  lead  the 
reader  to  suppose  that  our  mental  vision  of  these  immutable  truths  is 
identical  with  the  vision  of  the  divine  essence,  though  of  course  an- 
imperfect  vision;  hence,  we  need  not  be  surprised  to  learn  that 
Augustine  has  often  been  quoted  as  a  champion  of  Ontologism.  In 
other  places,  however,  our  Saint  has  clearly  distinguished  between 
these  ideal  truths,  and  God  as  the  real  and  original  truth;  he  con- 
cludes from  the  truths  innate  in  the  human  mind  that  God  must 
exist  as  their  first  and  essential  foundation.  He  is,  in  fact,  develop- 
ing the  argument  of  causality,  and  this  particular  demonstration  is 
only  his  peculiar  way  of  pressing  the  so-called  cosmological  proof 
of  the  existence  of  God.  With  the  exception  of  Saint  Bonaventure, 
that  «Second  Augustine»,  the  Aristotelian  scholastics  have  generally 
abandoned  this  argument  of  the  bishop  of  Hippo.  Nevertheless,  he 
conceived  in  this  way  the  existence  of  God  and  demonstrated  that 
He  was  beyond  all  categories  of  the  finite,  or  without  quality  or  quan- 
tity or  the  like :  sine  qualitate  bonum,  sine  quantitate  magnum,  sine 
indigentia  creatorem,  sine  situ  praesidentem,  sine  habitu  omnia  con- 
tinentem,  sine  loco  ubique  totum,  sine  tempore  sempiternum,  sine  ulla 
sui  mutatione  mutabilia  facientem  nihilque  patientem1.  God  is,  there- 
fore, at  once  knowable  and  unknowable.  Augustine  avoids  such 
Platonist  and  Neoplatonist  expressions  as  super-being,  super-life,  super- 
reason  etc.  The  finite  is  the  result  and  the  image  of  the  ideas  that 
illuminate  the  creative  will  of  the  Infinite  Being.  The  Platonic  ideas, 
therefore,  according  to  Augustine,  are  identical  with  the  creative 
ideas  of  God.  At  the  same  time  he  teaches  that  not  only  the  general 
essences  of  things  but  also  all  particular  things  (real  and  possible) 
are  ideally  pre-existent  in  the  mind  of  the  Creator:  Singula  igitur 
propriis  sunt  creata  rationibus  .  .  .  rerum  omnium  creandarum  crea- 
tarumve  rationes  in  divina  mente  continentur 2.  —  By  faith  in  divine 
revelation  there  is  opened  to  man  a  new  world  of  knowledge,  espe- 
cially of  the  knowledge  of  God.  In  his  later  or  post-baptismal 
writings,  Augustine  illustrates  as  follows  the  relations  between  faith 
and  knowledge:  Intellige  ut  credas,  crede  ut  intelligas3;  alia  sunt 
enim  quae  nisi  intelligamus  non  credimus,  et  alia  sunt  quae  nisi 
credamus  non  intelligimus ;  proficit  ergo  noster  intellectus  ad  intel- 
ligenda  quae  credat,  et  fides  proficit  ad  credenda  quae  intelligat 4. 
In  one  way  knowledge  precedes  faith;  our  reason  must  not  only 
furnish  us  the  images  and  concepts  through  which  we  grasp  and 
understand  the  truths  of  divine  revelation5,  but  must  also  furnish 
us  with  knowledge  of  the  objective  reality  of  the  latter:  Nostrum 
est  considerare  quibus  vel  hominibus  vel  libris  credendum  sit 6.    Faith 

1  De  trink.,  v.    i,   2.  2  De  div.  quaest.  lxxxiii,  qu.  xlvi.  2. 

3  Sermo  xliii.   7,   9.  4  Enarr.  in  Ps    cxviii,   sermo  xviii.   3. 

5  De  trinit.,  viii.  4 — 5  6—8.  6  De  vera  relig.  25,  46. 

Bardenheyver-Shahan,  Patrology.  32 


jog  SECOND   PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 

is  an  acquiescence  in  thoughts  that  we  have  previously  entertained: 
Nullus  quippe  credit  aliquid,  nisi  prius  cogitaverit  esse  credendum  .  .  . 
ipsum  credere  nihil  aliud  est  quam  cum  assensione  cogitare1.  The 
motives  of  this  assent  are  found  by  reason  in  the  contents  of  divine 
revelation,  especially  in  its  miracles  and  prophecies2.  But  once  we 
have  grasped  by  faith  the  truths  of  revelation,  our  reason  craves  a 
deeper  intelligence,  a  more  personal  comprehension  of  them.  And 
in  this  way  faith  precedes  knowledge,  as  the  prophet  had  foretold: 
Nisi  credideritis,  non  intelligetis 3.  In  the  future  life  this  knowledge 
will  become  the  beatific  vision:  Ilia  visio  facie  ad  faciem  liberatis 
in  resurrectione  servatur4. 

13.  THEOLOGY  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE.  REFUTATION  OF  PELAGIANISM. 
—  In  his  conflict  with  Pelagian  naturalism,  Augustine  was  called  on 
to  defend  the  fundamental  truths  of  Christianity,  viz.  that  in  creating 
man,  God  had  raised  him  to  a  supernatural  end  and  endowed  him 
accordingly  with  the  gifts  of  supernatural  grace.  Among  such  gifts 
of  the  original  state  he  reckons  immortality  {posse  non  mori  as 
distinguished  from  non  posse  mori),  freedom  from  the  disorders  of 
concupiscence  (concupiscentia  rebellis),  sanctity  and  justice  or  that 
supernatural  likeness  to  God  which  fallen  man  received  again  by 
means  of  sanctifying  grace:  Hanc  imaginem  in  spiritu  mentis  im- 
pressam  perdidit  Adam  per  peccatum,  quam  recipimus  per  gratiam 
iustitiae5.  Adam,  indeed,  might  have  persevered  in  this  state  of 
grace,  not  in  and  by  his  free  will,  but  by  means  of  the  actual  grace 
which  God  had  promised  him:  Primo  itaque  homini  .  .  .  datum  est  ad- 
iutorium  perseverantiae  non  quo  fieret  ut  perseveraret,  sed  sine  quo 
per  liberum  arbitrium  perseverare  non  posset 6.  But  as  a  consequence 
of  his  sin  Adam  lost  the  supernatural  gifts  of  his  original  state, 
was  deeply  wounded  in  all  the  natural  and  moral  forces  of  his  being, 
and  became  liable  to  eternal  damnation.  The  posterity  of  our  first 
father  inherited  his  sin  with  all  its  consequences  and  punishment,  so 
that  all  mankind  is  a  massa  perditionis,  damnabilis  et  damnata.  This 
hereditary  character  of  original  sin  is  explained  by  St.  Augustine, 
after  St.  Paul,  as  a  consequence  of  Adam's  office  as  the  head  and 
the  representative  of  the  human  race7.  He  does  not  undertake  to 
explain  the  manner  in  which  original  sin  is  handed  down.     The  Pe- 

1  De  praed.  sanctorum  ii.   5. 

2  De  vera  relig.  25,  46—47;  De  utilit.  credendi  16—17  34~ 35- 

3  Is.  vii.  9  (Septuagint) ;  Ep.  cxx.  1,  3;  Sermo  xliii.  6,  7;  Enarr.  in  Ps.  cxviii 
sermo  xviii.  3. 

*  Enarr.  in  Ps.  xliii.   5.  5  De  Gen.  ad  lit.  vi.   27,   38. 

6  De  corr.  et  grat.   12,   34. 

7  He  understands  the  «in  quo»  of  Rom.  v.  12  to  mean  «in  Adamo»  ;  cf.  Contra 
Iul.,  i.  3,  10,  and  Opus  imperfect,  c.  Iul.  i.  47,  where  he  quotes  approvingly  a  text 
from  St.  Ambrose  (Comm.  in  Lk.  vii.  234):  Fuit  Adam  et  in  illo  fuimus  omnes,  periit 
Adam  et  in  illo  omnes  perierunt. 


§  94-    ST-  augustine.  499 

lagians  argued  that  such  a  propagation  of  sin  was  impossible :  sin, 
they  said,  was  not  inherent  in  the  body,  but  in  the  soul,  and  the 
soul  was  created  by  God.  It  was  very  probably  in  deference  to  this 
objection  that  Augustine  abstained  from  pronouncing  definitely  against 
generationism,  and  in  favor  of  creationism.  By  the  act  of  genera- 
tion, he  replied,  either  there  is  propagated  together  with  the  body 
a  soul  contaminated  by  sin,  or  the  soul,  though  created  by  God,  is 
infected  with  in  the  corruption  of  sin  by  reason  of  its  union  with  the 
body 1.  But  this  presupposed  vitiatio  carnis  is  occasioned  and  brought 
about  by  sinful  concupiscence  in  the  act  of  generation2.  It  is  in 
consequence  of  these  principles  that,  when  Augustine  describes  the 
state  of  fallen  man,  he  is  wont  to  bring  forward  in  the  first  place 
the  corruption  of  human  nature  and  its  unruly  concupiscence.  He 
has  not  yet  made  it  clear  that  the  essence  of  original  sin  is  to  be 
found  in  the  loss  of  the  afore-mentioned  supernatural  likeness  to 
God.  On  the  other  hand,  he  loves  to  depict  both  the  corruption  of 
human  nature  and  the  corrupting  influence  of  an  evil  concupiscence, 
all  the  more  as  the  Pelagians  denied  not  only  the  existence  of  ori- 
ginal sin,  but  all  consequences  thereof  as  regards  human  nature. 
The  reformers  of  the  sixteenth  century,  likewise  Baius  and  Jansenius, 
appealed  willingly  to  the  authority  of  Augustine  in  favor  of  their 
doctrine  concerning  the  absolute  extinction  or  absence  of  all  natural 
moral  power  in  man.  However  Augustine  always  proclaims,  and 
with  energy,  that  fallen  man  still  possesses  free  will,  or  the  power  of 
choice  in  the  moral  order:  liberum  arbitrium3.  Though  fallen,  and 
groaning  beneath  the  yoke  of  concupiscence,  the  not  yet  justified 
man  cannot  only  desire  what  is  good,  but  can  also  perform  some- 
thing good,  praiseworthy  and  meritorious4.  It  is  true  that  in  his 
later  writings,  we  come  with  increasing  frequency  on  apparently 
contradictory  statements,  e.  g.  that  the  infidel  can  do  nothing  good, 
that  the  externally  good  works  of  the  infidels  are  really  sins5.  The 
context  shows,  however,  that  in  such  phrases  he  has  in  view  works 
that  are  supernatu rally  good ,  meritorious  of  salvation.  Augustine 
takes  it  for  granted  that  even  in  his  fallen  state  man  is  destined  to 
a  supernatural  end,  and  that  he  ought  to  direct  thereto  all  his  moral 
activity ;  this  end,  however,  can  be  known  to  him  only  by  faith,  and 
he  can  reach  it  only  by  the  grace  of  the  Redeemeer  which  comes 
through  faith.  Hence,  the  works  of  the  infidels  are  sins  in  the  sense 
that  they  are  not  performed  with  a  proper  intention:  Homines  sine 
fide  non  ad  eum  finem  ista  opera  retulerunt,  ad  quern  referre  debue- 

1   Contra  Iul..  v.  4,    17.  2  De  nupt.  et  concup.,  i.   24,   27. 

3  Contra  duas  epist.  Pelag.,  i.   2,   5 ;   ii.   5,   9. 

4  De  spir.  et  litt.  27 — 28,  48. 

5  Contra  duas  epist.  Pelag.,  iii.   5,   14 ;  Contra  Iul.,  iv.   3,   32 ;  in  both  places  with 
reference  to  Rom.  xiv.   23  :  omne  quod  non  est  ex  fide,  peccatum  est. 

32* 


$00  SECOND   PERIOD.      THIRD   SECTION. 

runt1;  as  regards  the  result,  he  admits  no  distinction  between  infidelity 
or  the  ignorance  of  our  supernatural  end  that  comes  from  personal  guilt, 
and  that  infidelity  which  is  the  consequence  of  the  guilt  contracted  by 
original  sin :  Et  ilia  ignorantia  quae  non  est  eorum  qui  scire  nolunt,  sed 
eorum  qui  tamquam  simpliciter  nesciunt,  neminem  sic  excusat  ut  sempi- 
terno  igne  non  ardeat2.  —  We  have  already  seen  that  by  justification 
man  regains  the  supernatural  likeness  of  God  that  he  had  lost  by  sin. 
In  the  naturalistic  system  of  the  Pelagians  there  was  no  place  for 
the  concept  of  an  internal  sanctifying  grace.  In  the  first  of  his  Anti- 
Pelagian  works3,  Augustine  explains  minutely  and  defends  sancti- 
fying grace  as  something  that  accomplishes  a  thorough  change  and 
renewal  in  man  through  the  infusion  of  habitual  love  of  God  and 
the  imparting  of  supernatural  strength.  By  this  grace  man  obtains 
the  true  freedom  of  his  will,  i.  e.  the  moral  strength  necessary  to 
perform  supernaturally  good  acts,  libertas  as  distinguished  from  libe- 
rum arbitrium:  Voluntas  quippe  humana  non  libertate  consequitur 
gratiam  sed  gratia  potius  libertatem4.  It  is  the  love  of  God  that 
renders  our  human  acts  truly  good,  i.  e.  deserving  of  eternal  happi- 
ness: Quid  autem  boni  faceremus  nisi  diligeremus?  aut  quomodo 
bonum  non  facimus  si  diligamus?5  It  is  through  actual  grace  that 
man  obtains  habitual  grace  with  perseverance  in  the  same  and  the 
proper  use  of  it.  Without  this  aid  man  can  neither  will  nor  perform 
any  (supernatural)  good:  nisi  ipsa  voluntas  hominis  Dei  gratia  fuerit 
liberata  et  ad  omne  bonum  actionis,  sermonis,  cogitationis  adiuta6; 
ipse  ut  velimus  operatur  incipiens,  qui  volentibus  cooperatur  per- 
ficiens7.  The  merits  of  the  Saints  are  the  gifts  of  divine  grace: 
non  gratia  ex  merito,  sed  meritum  ex  gratia8;  ipsum  hominis  meritum 
donum  est  gratuitum9.  In  His  elect  God  crowns  His  own  gifts: 
Dona  sua  coronat,  non  merita  tua  .  .  .  coronat  autem  in  nobis  Deus 
dona  misericordiae  suae10.  In  his  earlier  writings  Augustine  had 
limited  much  more  closely  the  influence  and  necessity  of  actual 
grace.  In  order  to  correct  or  explain  his  inexact  assertions  he  re- 
peats frequently  in  the  Retractationes  that  it  is  truly  man  who  wishes 
to  do  good,  but  that  it  is  God  who  gives  him  the  will  to  do  good, 
according  to  the  word  of  Scripture :  Praeparatur  voluntas  a  Domino  n. 
In  his  Expositio  quarumdam  proposit.  ex  epist.  ad  Rom.  our  Saint 
had  put  forth  the  theory  that  faith  is  the  work  of  man  and  not  the 
gift  of  God:  Fidem,  qua  in  Deum  credimus,  non  esse  donum  Dei, 
sed  a  nobis  esse  in  nobis12;  but  he  soon  corrected  this  theory  tacitly 13, 

1  Contra  Iul.,  iv.  3,   25.  2  De  gratja  et  Hb    arb    ^   $ 

3  De  pecc.  mer.  et  rem.  lib.  1.  *  De  corr.  et  grat.  8,    17. 

5  De  grat.  Chr.   26,   27.  «  Contra  duas  epist.  Pelag.,  ii.   5,   9. 

7  De  gratia  et  lib.  arb.    17,   33.  8  Sermo   i69j   ^   3 

9  EP-    186,  3,    10.  10  In  Io.  ev.  tract.   3,    10. 

11  Prov.  viii.  35   (Septuagint) ;  Retract.,  i.   9,   2 ;  i.    10,   2;   i.   22,   4;  ii.   1,   2 
[2  De^praed.  sanct.   3,   7.  U  De  div#  quaest>  ad  Simplic.  i,  qu.   2. 


§   94-      ST.    AUGUSTINE.  50 1 

and  at  a  later  date  withdrew  it  formally1.  He  believed  that  for  the 
first  time  in  De  correptione  et  gratia  he  had  taught  positively  and 
clearly,  that  perseverance  in  grace  was  a  gift  of  God :  Donum  Dei 
esse  etiam  perseverare  usque  in  finem2.  Similarly,  he  looked  on  his 
theory  of  predestination  as  a  consequence  of  his  conflict  with  Pelagian  - 
ism,  and  particularly  with  the  assertion  of  the  Pelagians:  Gratiam 
Dei  secundum  merita  nostra  dari3.  Predestination,  he  says,  is  the 
eternal  design  of  God  to  lead  certain  men  to  eternal  life  by  infallibly 
efficacious  graces:  Haec  est  praedestinatio  sanctorum,  nihil  aliud: 
praescientia  scilicet  et  praeparatio  beneficiorum  Dei,  quibus  certissime 
liberantur  quicumque  liberantur4;  praedestinasse  est  hoc  praescisse 
quod  fuerat  ipse  facturus5.  No  one  has  any  right  to  be  withdrawn 
from  the  massa  perditionis ,  and  whoever  is  withdrawn  therefrom 
owes  it  entirely  to  the  gratuitous  grace  of  God.  It  is  without  any 
regard  for  the  merits  of  the  elect  that  God  saves  some  from  eternal 
damnation  and  predestines  them  to  eternal  life:  Sola  enim  gratia 
redemptos  discernit  a  perditis6;  liberantur  .  .  .  gratuita  miseratione, 
non  debita,  quos  elegit  ante  constitutionem  mundi  per  electionem 
gratiae,  non  ex  operibus  vel  praeteritis  vel  praesentibus  vel  futuris. 
Alioquin  gratia  iam  non  est  gratia.  Quod  maxime  apparet  in  par- 
vulis7.  All  the  non-elect  are,  or  rather  remain,  the  prey  of  eternal 
damnation.  But  does  not  the  Apostle  say8  that  God  will  have  all 
men  to  be  saved?  This  difficult  text,  says  Augustine,  must  be  so 
explained  that  it  shall  not  conflict  with  the  evident  truth  that  what- 
ever God  wills  is  sure  to  happen  9.  Perhaps  the  Apostle  means  that 
no  one  is  saved  if  God  does  not  will  it10;  perhaps  by  «all  men»  we 
are  to  understand  all  classes  of  men:  omne  genus  humanum  per 
quascumque  differentias  distributum,  reges,  privatos  .  .  . n;  perhaps  he 
means  that  we  ought  to  be  ready  to  aid  all  men  in  the  matter  of 
their  salvation12.  After  the  year  417  Augustine  seems  no  longer  to 
admit  that  God  gives  to  every  one  grace  sufficient  for  salvation13. 
This  is  no  doubt  the  reason  why  he  no  longer  insists  on  the  nature 
of  the  efficacious  grace  reserved  to  the  elect  (adiutorium  quo),  nor 
on  its  relation  to  the  merely  sufficient  grace  (adiutorium  sine  quo  non). 
He  is  content  to  emphasize  the  infallible  results  of  efficacious  grace, 
and  loves  to  insist  on  the  divine  omnipotence  as  the  secret  of  its 
irresistible  operation.  The  idea  of  a  divine  will,  omnipotent,  supreme, 
the  source  of  all  goodness,  sustains  and  dominates  all  his  teaching 
concerning  divine  grace. 

1  Retract.,  i.   23,   2 — 4  ;  De  praed.  sanct.   3,   7  ;  4,  8. 

2  De  dono  persev.  21,  55.  3  lb.,  20,   53.  4  Ib.,   14,  35. 

5  Ib.,   18,  47.  6  Enchir.  99,  25.  7  Contra  Iul.,  vi.   19,  59. 

8  1   Tim.  ii.  4.  9  Enchir.    103,   27;  Ep.   217,  6,    19. 

10  Enchir.,  1.  c. ;  of;  Contra  Iul.,  iv.  8,  44. 

11  Enchir.,  1.  c;  De  corr.  et  grat.   14,  44.  12  De  corr.  et  grat.   15,  47,  46. 
13  Ep.    185,   11,  49;  De  corr.  et  grat.    11,   32. 


502 


SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 


14.  complete  editions,  translations.  —  The  first  complete  editions 
of  the  works  of  Augustine  were  brought  out  by  J.  Amerbach,  Basel,  1506, 
9  vols,  (reprinted  Paris,  1515);  D.  Erasmus,  Basel,  1528 — 1529,  10  vols, 
(often  reprinted);  Theologi  Lovanienses,  Antwerp,  1577,  11  vols,  (often 
reprinted).  The  Oratorian  H.  Vignier  published  a  valuable  Supplementum 
operum  S.  Augustini,  Paris,  1654 — 1655,  2  vols.;  see  Schoenemann,  Bibl. 
hist.-lit.  Patr.  lat.  ii.  65 — 70,  84—144.  They  were  all  surpassed  by  the 
edition  of  the  Benedictines  of  St.  Maur  (T/i.  Blampin,  P.  Constant,  et  al.); 
though  the  latter  did  not  add  many  inedita,  a  far  purer  text  of  Augustine 
was  presented  by  them,  while  they  also  separated  very  successfully  the 
spurious  material  from  the  genuine,  especially  as  regards  the  letters  and 
the  sermons.  This  edition  appeared  at  Paris,  1679 — 17°°>  TI  vols.,  vol.  i 
to  iv  and  viii — x  were  reprinted  at  Paris,  1688 — 1696.  With  the  exception 
of  vol.  iv.  (Enarr.  in  Psalmos),  each  of  the  volumes  i — x  contains  a  special- 
ly paginated  appendix  in  which  are  found  the  spuria  and  the  adiecta. 
Vol.  xi  contains  a  very  copious  life  of  St.  Augustine  and  a  comprehensive 
Index  in  omnia  opera  S.  Augustini.  In  the  preparation  of  the  Vita  the 
Benedictine  editors  were  able  to  use  the  manuscript  biography  of  the  Saint 
by  Tillemont,  published  later  in  the  latter's  Memoires  pour  servir  ä  l'histoire 
eccles.  xiii.,  2.  ed.,  Paris,  17 10.  Very  detailed  Indices  to  the  works  of 
St.  Augustine  were  published  by  the  Dominican  D.  Lenfant  in  his  Con- 
cordantiae  Augustinianae,  Paris,  1656— 1665,  2  vols.  Cf.  R.  C.  Kukula, 
Die  Mauriner  Ausgabe  des  Augustinus  (Sitzungsberichte  der  k.  Akad.  der 
Wissensch.  zu  Wien),  Vienna,  1890,  i — ii. ;  1893,  iii.  1;  1898,  iii.  2; 
O.  Rottmanner,  Bibliographische  Nachträge  zu  Dr.  R.  C.  Kukulas  Abhand- 
lung: «Die  Mauriner  Ausgabe  des  Augustinus»,  in  the  same  Sitzungsberichte, 
Vienna,  1891 ;  A.  M.  P.  Ingold ,  Histoire  de  l'edition  Benedictine  de 
St.  Augustin,  Paris,  1903.  The  Benedictine  edition  was  reprinted,  ap- 
parently at  Antwerp,  but  really  at  Amsterdam,  1700 — 1702,  n  vols.;  in 
1703  appeared  (ib.)  a  twelfth  volume  entitled:  Appendix  Augustiniana  by 
Phereponus  (Jean  le  Clerc) ;  it  was  also  reprinted  at  Venice,  1729 — 1735, 
11  vols.;  1756— 1769,  18  vols.;  1797  — 1807,  18  vols.;  1833 — 1866,  11  vols.; 
another  reprint  was  brought  out  at  Paris,  in  11  vols,  (apud  fratres 
Gaume,  1836 — 1839),  and  accurante  J.  P.  Migne,  Paris,  1845,  "  vols.; 
finally  in  PL.  xxxii — xlvii.  1845  — 1849.  A  new  and  complete  edition  was 
undertaken  in  1887  for  the  Corpus  script,  eccles.  lat.  of  the  Vienna  Aca- 
demy of  Sciences,  so  far  there  have  been  edited  the  Speculum  [F.  Weih- 
rich,  vol.  xii),  most  of  the  Anti-Manichaean  works  {J.  Zycha,  xxv.  1  —  2),  se- 
veral exegetical  works  [Zycha  s  xxviii.  1 — 3),  several  moral-theological  works 
{Zycha,  xli),  the  Confessiones  (P.  Knöll,  xxxiii),  a  portion  of  the  correspon- 
dence (A.  Goldbacher,  xxxiv.  1—2),  the  De  civitate  Dei  [E.  Hoffmann,  xl) 
and  various  anti-Pelagian  works  (C.  F.  Urba  and  J.  Zycha,  xlii),  the  Re- 
tractiones  (P.  Knöll,  xxxvi).  The  volumes  edited  by  Zycha  correspond 
but  partially  with  the  just  demands  of  modern  scholarship.  —  Ausgewählte 
Schriften  des  hl.  Aurelius  Augustinus,  Kirchenlehrers,  nach  dem  Urtexte 
übersetzt,  Kempten,  187 1— 1879,  8  vols.  (Bibl.  der  Kirchenväter) ;  i:  Con- 
fessiones by  J.  Mohberger;  ii— iii:  De  civitate  Dei  by  U.  Uhl;  iv:  De 
doctrina  Christiana  by  R.  Storf,  De  catechizandis  rudibus  by  Mohberger, 
De  symbolo  ad  catechumenos  by  Storf,  De  fide  et  operibus  by  Storf, 
Enchiridion  ad  Laurentium  by  Mohberger;  v — vi:  In  Johannis  evangelium 
tractatus  cxxv  by  ff.  ffayd;  vii-viii:  Select  letters  by  Th.  Kranzfelder. 
There  is  an  English  translation  of  nearly  all  the  works  of  St.  Augustine, 
m  the  Select  Library  of  the  Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers  of  the 
Christian  Church,  by  Ph.  Schaf  (series  I),  Buffalo,   1886  ff. 


§   94-     ST.    AUGUSTINE.  503 

15.  SEPARATE    EDITIONS.     TRANSLATIONS.      RECENSIONS.    —    Retractationes 

and  Confessiones,  Philosophical  works:  The  Confessiones  have  often  been 
printed  separately.  The  edition  of  the  Jesuits,  H.  Sommalius  (Douai,  1607) 
and  H.  Wagner  eck  (Confessionum  libri  x  priores,  Dillingen,  1630)  circulated 
widely.  Later  separate  editions  are  owing  to  K.  v.  Raumer,  Stuttgart,  1856, 
2.  ed.,  Gütersloh,  1876;  P.  Knoll,  Leipzig,  1898.  German  translations  were 
published  by  W.  Bornemann,  Gotha,  1889,  (Bibl.  theolog.  Klassiker,  vol.  xii), 
and  O.  F.  Bachmann,  Leipzig.  1891.  Cf.  A.  Harnack,  Augustins  Konfes- 
sionen, ein  Vortrag,  Giessen,  1888.  2.  ed.  1894,  3.  ed.  1903.  G.  Boissier, 
La  fin  du  paganisme,  Paris,  i,  3.  ed.,  1903,  pp.  291 — 325:  «La  conversion 
de  St.  Augustin.»  The  opinion  of  Harnack  and  Boissier  that  the  account 
of  Augustine's  conversion,  as  told  in  the  Confessions,  is  not  entirely  reliable, 
has  been  refuted  by  Ft.  Wörter,  Die  Geistesentwicklung  des  hl.  Aurelius 
Augustinus  bis  zu  seiner  Taufe,  Paderborn,  1892,  pp.  62 — 66,  cf.  C.  Douais, 
Les  Confessions  de  St.  Augustin,  Paris,  1893.  —  The  philosophical  works 
of  St.  Augustine  are  discussed  by  Wörter,  1.  c,  67 — 210:  «Augustins  littera- 
rische Tätigkeit  bis  zu  seiner  Taufe.»  D.  Ohlmann,  De  S.  Augustini  dia- 
logis  in  Cassiciaco  scriptis  (Diss,  inaug.),  Strassburg,  1897.  For  the  Soli- 
loquia  cf.  Matinie,  S.  Augustinus  Aurelius  in  Soliloquiis  qualis  philosophus 
appareat,  qualis  vir  (These),  Rennes,  1864.  The  spurious  Soliloquia,  Medi- 
tationes,  Manuale,  were  often  edited  separately,  especially  by  H.  Sommalius, 
whose  first  edition  of  them  appeared  at  Douai,  1613;  reprinted  by  E.  W. 
Westhoff,  Münster,  1854.  For  Augustine's  treatise  on  the  seven  liberal 
arts  and  its  surviving  fragments  cf.  Teuff el- Schwabe,  Gesch.  der  röm.  Litt., 
5.  ed.,  pp.  1132 — 1133.  W.  Ott,  Über  die  Schrift  des  hl.  Augustinus  «De 
magistro»  (Progr.),  Hechingen,  1898.  —  Apologetic  works:  Separate  edi- 
tions of  the  De  civitate  Dei  were  printed  by  jf.  Strange,  Cologne,  1850, 
2  vols.,  and  by  B.  Dombart,  Leipzig,  1863,  2  vols.;  2.  ed.  1877.  G.  J. 
Seyrich,  Die  Geschichtsphilosophie  Augustins  nach  seiner  Schrift  «De  civi- 
tate Dei»  (Inaug.-Diss.),  Leipzig,  1891.  G.  Boissier,  La  fin  du  paganisme, 
Paris,  3.  ed.  1903,  ii.  293 — 337 :  La  «Cite  de  Dieu»  de  St.  Augustin. 
C.  Prick,  Die  Quellen  Augustins  im  xviii.  Buche  seiner  Schrift  «De  civi- 
tate Dei»  (Progr.),  Höxter,  1886.  J.  Dräseke,  Zu  Augustins  «De  civitate 
Dei»  xviii.  42,  eine  Quellenuntersuchung,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  wissenschaftl.  Theol. 
(1889),  xxxii.  230 — 248.  J.  Biegler,  Die  «Civitas  Dei»  des  hl.  Augustinus, 
Paderborn,  1894.  E.  Hoffmann,  Zu  Augustins  «De  civitate  Dei»,  text- 
kritische Epilegomena  zur  Ausgabe  im  Wiener  Corpus,  in  Sitzungsberichte, 
Vienna,  1900.  H.  Kuhlmann,  De  veterum  historicorum  in  Augustini  De 
civitate  Dei  libro  primo,  altero,  tertio  vestigiis  (Progr.),  Schleswig,  1900.  — 
Dogmatic  works:  The  Enchiridion  ad  Laurentium  was  also  often  edited 
separately;  one  of  the  oldest  and  best  editions,  with  copious  notes,  is  that 
of  the  Jesuit  J.  B.  Faure,  Rome,  1755,  reprint  by  C.  Passaglia,  Naples, 
1847.  The  latest  edition,  and  textually  the  most  critical  is  that  of  J.  G. 
Krabinger,  Tübingen,  1861.  It  is  also  in  Hurler,  SS.  Patr.  opusc.  sei.  xvi 
(vol.  vi.  has  De  fide  et  symbolo,  and  De  fide  rerum  quae  non  videntur; 
vols,  xlii — xliii  contain  De  trinitate).  A  new  edition  of  the  Enchiridion  was 
published  by  O.  Scheel,  Tübingen,   1903. 

16.  SEPARATE    EDITIONS.       TRANSLATIONS.       RECENSIONS    (CONTINUED).    — 

Dogmatico-polemical  works:  A  reprint  of  the  Benedictine  edition  of  De 
haeresibus  is  found  in  Er.  Oehler,  Corpus  haereseologicum,  Berlin,  1856, 
i.  187 — 225.  —  Anti-Manichcean  works:  Most  of  them  were  newly  edited  by 
Zycha  (see  no.  14)  together  with  the  (supposed)  work  of  bishop  Evodius ;  con- 
cerning the  correspondence  of  Evodius  with  our  Saint  see  Bardenhewer,  in 
the  Kirchenlexicon  of  Wetzer  and  Weite  (2.  ed.)  iv.  1061.  In  Revue  Be'ned. 
(1896),  xiii.  481—486,  Dom  Morin  published  a  new  letter  of  Evodius.    For 


504 


SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 


the  history  of  the  Manichaeans  of  Augustine's  time  see  A.  Bruckner,  Faustus 
von  Mileve.  Ein  Beitrag  zur  Geschichte  des  abendländischen  Manichäismus, 
Basel,  iqoi.  —  Anti-Donatist  works:  In  Hurter  (SS.  Patr.  opusc.  sei.  xxvii) 
are  reprinted  S.  Augustini  opuscula  selecta  de  ecclesia.  For  a  general 
account  of  the  anti-Donatist  writings  of  our  Saint  see  F.  Ribbeck,  Donatus 
und  Augustinus  oder  der  erste  entscheidende  Kampf  zwischen  Separatismus 
und  Kirche,  Elberfeld,  1857 — 1858,  2  parts.  For  the  Psalmus  contra  partem 
Donati,  the  oldest  monument  of  Latin  rhythmic  poetry,  see  W.  Meyer,  in 
Abhandlungen  der  k.  bayer.  Akad.  der  Wissensch.  1.  Kl.,  vol.  xvii,  part  II, 
Munich,  1885,  pp.  284 — 288.  On  the  pretended  Liber  testimoniorum  fidei 
contra  Donatistas,  in  Pitra,  Analecta  sacra  et  classica,  Paris,  1888,  part  I, 
pp.  147 — 158,  see  §  in,  3.  —  Anti- Pelagian  works:  In  Hurter  (1.  c.  xxxv 
xxxvi)  are  found  S.  Augustini  et  S.  Prosp.  Aquit.  de  gratia  opusc.  sei. 
Urba  and  Zycha  have  edited  (see  no.  14):  De  perfectione  hominis,  De 
gestis  Pelagii,  De  gratia  Christi  et  de  peccato  originali  libri  duo,  De  nup- 
tiis  et  concupiscentia  ad  Valerium  comitem  libri  duo.  For  a  general  study 
of  his  anti-Pelagian  writings,  see  G.  Fr.  Wiggers,  Versuch  einer  pragma- 
tischen Darstellung  des  Augustinismus  und  Pelagianismus  nach  ihrer  ge- 
schichtlichen Entwicklung  (new  ed.),  Hamburg,  1833,  2  vols.  For  the 
history  of  Pelagianism  see  Fr.  Wörter,  Der  Pelagianismus  nach  seinem 
Ursprünge  und  seiner  Lehre,  Freiburg  i.  Br.,  1866;  2.  ed.  1874.  Fr.  Klasen, 
Die  innere  Entwicklung  des  Pelagianismus,  Freiburg  i.  Br.,  1882.  y.  Ernst, 
Pelagianische  Studien.  Kritische  Randbemerkungen  zu  Klasen  und  Wörter, 
in  Katholik  1884,  ii.  225 — 259,  1885,  i.  241  —  269,  Of  the  rather  numerous 
writings  of  Pelagius  some  have  been  preserved:  Commentarii  in  epistolas 
S.  Pauli  [Migne,  PL.,  xxx.  645 — 902),  an  important  exegetical  work,  and 
Epistola  ad  Demetriadem,  written  about  412 — 413  (Ib.,  xxx.  15 — 45,  and 
xxxiii.  1099 — 1 1 20);  it  was  translated  into  Italian  and  attributed  to  St.  Je- 
rome by  the  Dominican  Zanobi,  Naples,  1863.  Pelagius  wrote  also  a  Li- 
bellus  Fidei  ad  Innocentium  papam,  in  417  (lb.  xlv.  17 16 — 17 18  and  xlviii. 
488 — 491).  The  origin  of  the  Epistola  ad  Celantiam  matronam  (lb.  xxii. 
1204 — 1220)  is  still  doubtful.  In  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1885)  lxvii.  244 — 317 
S31 — 577»  &•  Klasen  denied  the  Pelagian  authorship  of  the  Commentaries 
on  the  Pauline  epistles.  In  their  anti-Pelagian  works  Jerome,  Augustine 
and  Marius  Mercator  quoted  more  or  less  extensively  texts  from  other 
works  of  Pelagius :  Eulogiarum  (also  capitulorum  and  testimoniorum  ?)  liber, 
De  natura,  De  libero  arbitrio,  and  several  letters.  Other  works  are  known 
only  by  name,  e.  g.  De  trinitate  libri  tres.  For  further  details  see  Schoene- 
mann,  Bibl.  hist.-litt.  Patr.  lat.  ii.  433—436;  Bahr,  Gesch.  der  röm.  Litte- 
ratur,  Supplement,  (1836— 1840),  ii.  310—314.  The  text  of  the  Commen- 
tarii of  Pelagius  in  Migne  (1.  c.)  is  not  the  original ;  for  its  sources  see 
the  valuable  work  of  H.  Zimmer,  Pelagius  in  Irland :  Texte  und  Unter- 
suchungen zur  patristischen  Litteratur,  Berlin,  1902.  Caelestius  was  pro- 
bably neither  British  or  Scot,  nor  Irish,  but  Italian.  Apart  from  the  quota- 
tions found  in  Augustine,  his.  works  Contra  traducem  peccati,  Definitiones, 
Libelli  fidei,  and  others  have  perished.  J.  Gamier  (f  1681)  attempted  to 
put  together  the  full  text  of  Definitiones  from  their  refutation  by  St.  Au- 
gustine, also  a  Libellus  fidei  to  Pope  Zosimus;  cf.  Schoenemann,  1.  c,  ii. 
470—472.  The  two  principal  works  of  Julianus  of  Eclanum:  Libri  iv  ad 
Turbantium  and  Libri  viii  ad  Florum,  can  be  reconstructed  in  large  mea- 
sure from  their  refutations  by  Augustine.  For  unimportant  fragments  of 
other  works  of  Julianus  see  Schoenemann,  1.  c,  ii.  574  ff.  Cf.  A.  Bruckner, 
Julian  von  Eclanum,  sein  Leben  und  seine  Lehre,  Leipzig,  1897,  in  Texte 
und  Untersuchungen,  xv.  3.  Anianus,  the  Latin  translator  of  Chrysostom, 
appeared   as   a    defender   of  Pelagianism    and    an    opponent    of  Jerome 


§   94-      ST-    AUGUSTINE.  505 

(§  74,  14).  A  Corpus  Pelagianum,  containing  two  unaddressed  letters,  a 
treatise  De  divitiis,  and  three  letters  De  malis  doctoribus  et  operibus  fidei  et 
de  iudicio  futuro,  De  possibilitate  non  peccandi,  and  De  castitate,  was  edited 
by  C.  P.  Caspari:  Briefe,  Abhandlungen  und  Predigten  aus  den  zwei  letzten 
Jahrhunderten  des  kirchlichen  Altertums  und  dem  Anfang  des  Mittelalters, 
Christiania,  1890,  pp.  1 — 67.  All  the  documents  of  this  collection  are 
clearly  Pelagian,  belong  to  one  and  the  same  British  author,  and  must 
have  appeared  between  413  and  430.  Caspari  (1.  c,  pp.  223 — 389)  thinks 
he  is  the  Pelagian  Agricola  mentioned  by  Prosper  in  his  Chronicle  ad 
a.  429:  Mon.  Germ.  hist.  Auct.  Antiq.  ix  1,  472,  but  G.  Morin,  in  Revue 
Bened.,  1898,  xv.  481 — 493  (cf.  Künstle,  inTheol.  Quartalschr.  1900,  lxxxii. 
193 — 204)  thinks  that  these  works  were  written  by  the  British  bishop 
Fastidius,  of  whom  Gennadius  says  (De  viris  ill.,  c.  56)  that  he  wrote  a 
work  De  vita  christiania,  and  another  De  viduitate  servanda;  Morin  is 
of  opinion  that  the  De  vita  Christiana  is  identical  with  the  first  work  in 
the  Caspari  collection,  while  the  second  work  of  Fastidius  has  been  lost. 
Following  an  ancient  conjecture,  Caspari  (1.  c,  pp.  352 — 375)  identified  the 
De  vita  Christiana  of  Fastidius  with  the  pseudo-Augustinian  De  vita  Chri- 
stiana [Migne,  PL.  ,xl.  1031 — 1046  and  1.  383 — 402).  The  Epistola  Fastidii 
Britannici  episc.  ad  Fatalem,  in  Pitra,  Analecta  sacra  et  classica,  Paris, 
1888,  part  I,  134 — 136,  is  a  bold  plagiarism  from  the  pseudo-Hieronymian 
letter  Ad  Pamm.  et  Oc.  [Migne,  xxx.  239  —  242).  J.  Baer,  De  operibus 
Fastidii  Britannorum  episcopi,  Nürnberg,  1902,  shows  the  identity  of  the 
Pelagian  treatise  edited  by  Caspari  with  the  De  vita  Christiana;  as  Fasti- 
dius certainly  wrote  the  former,  he  must  also  be  the  author  of  the  latter. 

17.     SEPARATE     EDITIONS.      TRANSLATIONS,     RECENSIONS     (CONTINUED).    — 

Exegetical  works :  Several  exegetical  works  of  Augustine  were  newly  edited 
by  Zycha  (see  no.  14).  The  one  hundred  and  twenty-four  homilies  on  the 
Gospel  of  John  are  printed  in  Hurter's  Opuscula  selecta  (series  ii.  1 — 2).  For 
no.  102  of  the  pseudo-Augustinian  Quaestiones  Veteris  et  Novi  Testamenti 
(Contra  Novatianum)  see  A.  Harnack ,  in  Abhandlungen,  AI.  v.  Öttingen 
gewidmet,  Munich,  1898,  pp.  54 — 93.  A.  Souter,  An  Unknown  Fragment 
of  the  pseudo-Augustinian  Quaestiones  Veteris  Testamenti,  in  Journal  of 
Theol.  Studies  (1904),  vi.  61—66.  On  the  exegetical  writings  of  Augustine 
in  general  cf.  H.  N.  Clausen,  Aurelius  Augustinus  Hipponensis  S.  Scrip- 
turae  interpres,  Kopenhagen,  1827.  C.  Douais ,  St.  Augustin  et  la  Bible, 
in  Revue  Biblique  (1893),  ii.  62 — 81  351 — 377;  (1894),  iii.  no — 135  410 
to  432.  Concerning  his  ignorance  of  Hebrew-  the  reader  may  consult 
O.  Rottmanner ,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1895),  lxxvii.  269 — 276.  Id., 
St.  Augustin  sur  l'auteur  de  l'epitre  aux  Hebreux,  in  Revue  Bened.  (1901), 
xviii.  257 — 261.  Id. ,  Augustinus  als  Exeget,  in  Bibl.  Zeitschr.  (1904), 
pp.  398 — 399.  Sancti  Aureli  Augustini  De  consensu  Evangelistarum  libri 
quattuor.  Recensuit  et  commentario  critico  instruxit  Franciscus  Weihrich 
(Corpus  scriptorum  eccles.  latinorum,  vol.  xxxiii),  Vienna,  1904.  R.  C. 
Trench,  S.  Augustine  on  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  Dublin,  several 
editions;  Die  Erklärung  der  Bergpredigt  aus  den  Schriften  des  hl.  Augu- 
stinus, deutsch  von  E.  Roller,  Neukirchen,  1904.  —  Works  on  Moral  and 
Pastoral  Theology.  We  owe  to  Weihrich  (see  no.  14)  new  editions  of  the 
genuine  Speculum  (Quis  ignorat)  and  the  spurious  Speculum  (Audi  Israhel) ; 
other  works  of  Augustine  on  moral  theology  were  edited  by  Zycha ;  cf.  F. 
Weihrich,  Das  Speculum  des  hl.  Augustinus  und  seine  handschriftliche  Über- 
lieferung, in  Sitzungsberichte  der  kgl.  Akad.  der  Wissensch.  zu  Wien, 
Vienna,  1883.  Id. ,  Die  Bibelexcerpte  De  divinis  scripturis  und  die  Itala 
des  hl.  Augustinus,  in  the  same  Sitzungsberichte,  Vienna,  1893.  L.  Delisle, 
Le  plus  ancien  manuscrit   du  Miroir   de  St.  Augustin  (Extrait   de   la  Bibl. 


5o6 


SECOND    PERIOD,      THIRD    SECTION. 


de  l'Ecole  des  Chartes),  Paris,  1884,  differs  from  Weihrich  and  maintains 
the  genuineness  of  Audi  Israhel.  For  the  works  De  mendacio  and  Contra 
mendacium  see  E.  Rtcejac,  De  mendacio  quid  senserit  Augustinus,  Paris, 
1897.  The  De  catechizandis  rudibus  is  found  in  Hurter,  Ss.  Patr.  opusc. 
sei.  (series  I),  viii,  and  in  A.  Wolf  hard  and  G.  Krüger,  Sammlung  aus- 
gewählter kirchen-  und  dogmengeschichtl.  Quellenschriften,  fasc.  iv,  Frei- 
burg i.  Br.,  1892,  2.  ed.,  1893.  F.  X.  Schöber  I ,  Die  «Narratio»  des  hl.  Au- 
gustin und  die  Katechetiker  der  Neuzeit,  Dingolfing,  1880.  P.  Reutschka, 
Die  Dekalogkatechese  des  hl.  Augustinus  (Diss.),  Breslau,  1904.  —  Sermons. 
Letters.  Poems:  The  Augustini  sermones  inediti  by  A.  B.  Caillau  (Paris, 
1842)  are  nearly  all  spurious,  cf.  Fessler-Jungmann ,  Instit.  Patrol.,  ii  1, 
376,  and  G.  Morin,  in  Revue  Bened.  (1893),  x.  28—36.  The  Sermones 
S.  Augustini  ex  codicibus  Vaticanis,  in  Mai,  Nova  Patr.  Bibl.,  Rome,  1852, 
i.  part  1,  1 — 470,  are  also  for  the  most  part  spurious;  the  same  is  true  of 
the  nine  Homiliae  or  Sermones  edited  by  Fr.  Liverani,  Spicilegium  Libe- 
rianum,  Florence,  1863,  pp.  11 — 33.  C.  P.  Caspari  edited  anew,  in  Alte 
und  neue  Quellen  zur  Geschichte  des  Taufsymbols  und  der  Glaubensregel, 
Christiania,  1879,  PP-  223 — 249>  tne  Sermo  213,  in  traditione  symboli  2 
(Migne,  PL.,  xxxviii.  1060 — 1065);  its  genuineness  should  never  have  been 
called  in  question;  Caspari  published  also  a  Homilia  de  sacrilegiis,  a 
spurious  work,  but  remarkable  for  both  contents  and  diction,  on  the  sur- 
vival of  superstitions  and  pagan  usages  among  Christians :  Eine  Augustin 
fälschlich  beigelegte  Homilia  de  sacrilegiis,  Christiania,  1886.  Dom  Morin 
discovered  and  published,  in  Revue  Benedictine  (1890),  vii.  260 — 270  592; 
(1891),  viii.  417 — 419;  cf.  (1892),  ix.  173 — 177,  two  new  and  genuine 
sermons  of  Augustine :  Sermo  in  vigil.  S.  Joh.  Bapt.  and  Sermo  in  die 
S.  Eulaliae ;  cf.  Morin,  Les  sermons  inedits  de  St.  Augustin  dans  le  manu- 
scrit  latin  17059  de  Munich,  in  Revue  Bened.  (1893),  x.  481 — 497  529 
to  541.  A.  Regnier ,  La  latinite  des  sermons  de  St.  Augustin,  Paris,  1887. 
A.  Degert,  Quid  ad  mores  ingeniaque  Afrorum  cognoscenda  conferant 
S.  Augustini  sermones  (These),  Paris,  1894.  Mention  has  already  been 
made  (see  no.  14)  of  the  new  edition  of  the  letters  by  Goldbacher  who 
Wiener  Studien  (1894),  xvi.  72  —  77  in  described  two  newly  found  letters. 
In  Revue  Bened.  (1901),  xviii.  241 — 244,  Dom  Morin  published  a  letter 
of  St.  Augustine  and  one  of  a  certain  Januarianus,  both  concerning  the 
monastic  troubles  at  Adrumetum.  —  For  the  poetry  of  St.  Augustine  see 
M.  Manitius,  Gesch.  der  christlich.-latein.  Poesie,  Stuttgart,  1891,  pp.  320  to 
323.  According  to  A.  Ebner,  Handschriftliche  Studien  über  das  Praeconium 
paschale,  in  Kirchenmusikalisches  Jahrbuch  für  das  Jahr  1893,  pp.  73 — 83, 
St.  Augustine  is  the  author  of  the  paschal  hymn  Exultet;  cf.  S.  Pieralisi, 
II  preconio  pasquale  conforme  all'  insigne  frammento  del  Cod.  Barberiniano. 
Dell'  autore  del  piu  antico  preconio  pasquale.  Due  dissert.  Rome,  1883. 
18.  biographies  and  portraits.  —  We  have  already  mentioned  (no.  14) 
the  two  most  important  of  the  older  biographies,  that  of  Tillemont  and 
that  of  the  Benedictines  (the  latter  in  Migne,  PL.,  xxxii.  65 — 578).  Among 
more  recent  works  the  reader  may  consult  Fr.  Böhringer,  Die  Kirche 
Christi  und  ihre  Zeugen  oder  die  Kirchengeschichte  in  Biographien,  Zürich, 
l845>  i  3>  99~774-  Fr.  und  P.  Böhringer,  Aurelius  Augustinus,  Bischof 
von  Hippo,  Stuttgart,  1877— 1878,  2  vols.  (Die  Kirche  Christi  und  ihre 
Zeugen)  new  ed.,  xi,  1.  and  2.  half;  Poujoulat ,  Histoire  de  St.  Augustin, 
sa  vie,  ses  ceuvres,  son  siecle,  influence  de  son  genie,  Paris,  1845— 1846, 
3  vols.,  7.  ed.,  1886,  2  vols.  This  work  was  translated  into  German  from 
the  first  edition  by  Fr.  Hurter,  Schaffhausen,  1846— 1847,  2  vols.  C.  Wolfs- 
gruber,  Augustinus,  Paderborn,  1898.  J.  Martin,  St.  Augustin,  Paris,  1901 
(Les  grands  philosophes).     A.  Hatzfeld,  St.  Augustin,    6.  ed.,   Paris,   1901 


§    94-      ST-    AUGUSTINE.  507 

(Les  Saints).  G.  Fr.  v.  Hertling,  Augustin.  Der  Untergang  der  antiken 
Kultur  (Weltgeschichte  in  Charakterbildern),  Mainz,  1901.  H.  A.  Naville, 
St.  Augustin.  Etude  sur  le  developpement  de  sa  pensee  jusqu'ä  l'epoque 
de  son  ordination,  Geneva,  1872.  Fr.  Wörter,  Die  Geistesentwicklung  des 
Ijl.  Aurelius  Augustinus  bis  zu  seiner  Taufe,  Paderborn,  1892.  Flottes, 
Etudes  sur  St.  Augustin,  son  genie,  son  ame ,  sa  philosophic  Montpellier, 
1861.  W.  Cunningham,  St.  Austin  and  his  place  in  the  history  of  Chris- 
tian thought,  London,  1886.  J.  McCabe ,  Saint  Augustine  and  his  Age, 
London,  1902.  E.  PortalU,  Le  role  doctrinal  de  Saint  Augustin,  in  Bul- 
letin de  litterature  ecclesiastique  (1903),  pp.  33 — 37.  Ph.  Martain,  Saint 
Augustin  et  Saint  Paulin  de  Nole.  I.  Premieres  relations,  Une  ame  ä 
sauver.  II.  Colloques  ascetiques.  En  face  de  l'orige'nisme.  III.  Nole  en 
410.  Correspondence  scripturaire.  IV.  En  face  du  pelagianisme :  Revue 
Augustinienne  (1904),  pp.  120 — 131  266 — 287  368  383  576—596.  Herrn. 
Frankfurth,  Augustin  und  die  Synode  zu  Diospolis,  Berlin,   1904. 

19.    WORKS    ON    THE  PHILOSOPHY    OF    ST.  AUGUSTINE.  —  J.  F.   NourrisSOU, 

La  philosophie  de  St.  Augustin,  Paris,  1865,  2  vols.,  2.  ed.,  1869.  J.  Storz, 
Die  Philosophie  des  hl.  Augustinus,  Freiburg  i.  Br.,  1882.  L.  Grandgeorge, 
St.  Augustin  et  le  neoplatonisme,  Paris,  1896  For  his  teaching  concerning 
cognition  see  N.  J.  L.  Schütz,  Divi  Augustini  de  origine  et  via  cognitionis 
intellectualis  doctrina  ab  ontologismi  nota  vindicata  (Diss,  inaug.),  Münster, 
1867.  J.  Hähnel ,  Verhältnis  des  Glaubens  zum  Wissen  bei  Augustin 
(Inaug. -Diss.),  Leipzig,  1891.  H.  Leder ,  Untersuchungen  über  Augustins 
Erkenntnistheorie  in  ihren  Beziehungen  zur  antiken  Skepsis,  zu  Plotin  und 
zu  Descartes  (Dissert.),  Marburg,  1901.  For  a  discussion  of  his  ideas  on 
metaphysics  see  C.  van  Endert,  Der  Gottesbeweis  in  der  patristischen  Zeit 
mit  besonderer  Berücksichtigung  Augustins,  Freiburg  i.  Br.,  1869.  K.  Scipio, 
Des  Aurelius  Augustinus  Metaphysik  im  Rahmen  seiner  Lehre  vom  Übel, 
Leipzig,  1886.  F.  Melzer ,  Die  Augustinische  Lehre  vom  Kausalitäts- 
verhältnis Gottes  zur  Welt,  Neisse,  1892.  His  psychological  ideas  are  dis- 
cussed by  Th.  Gangauf ,  Metaphysische  Psychologie  des  hl.  Augustinus, 
Augsburg,  1852.  W.  Heinzelmann,  Augustins  Lehre  vom  Wesen  und  Ur 
sprung  der  menschlichen  Seele  (Progr.),  Halberstadt,  1868;  Id.,  Augustins 
Lehre  von  der  Unsterblichkeit  und  Immaterialität  der  menschlichen  Seele 
(Inaug.-Diss.),  Jena,  1874.  J.  Martin,  La,  doctrine  spirituelle  de  St.  Augu- 
stin, Paris,  1901.  K.  Werner,  Die  Augustinische  Psychologie  in  ihrer 
mittelalterlich-scholastischen  Einkleidung  und  Gestaltung  (Sitzungsberichte 
der  kgl.  Akad.  der  Wissensch.  zu  Wien),  Vienna,  1882.  F.  Kolde ,  Das 
Staatsideal  des  Mittelalters,  I.  part:  Seine  Grundlegung  durch  Augustin 
(Progr.),  Berlin,  1902.  His  aesthetical  teachings  are  treated  by  A.  Berthaud, 
S.  Augustmi  doctrina  de  pulchro  ingenuisque  artibus  e  varus  illius  operi- 
bus  excerpta,  Poitiers,  1891.  P.  Martain,  Les  fondements  philosophiques 
de  l'harmonie  d'apres  St.  Augustin,  in  Revue  Augustinienne  (1902),  pp.  529 
to  543.  E.  Nardelli ,  II  determinismo  nella  filosofia  di  sant'  Agostino, 
Turin,   1905,  pp.  x — 212. 

.  20.  works  on  the  theology  of  st.  augustine.  —  Among  modern 
writers  the  reader  may  consult  A.  Dorner,  Augustinus,  sein  theologisches 
System  und  seine  religionsphilosophische  Anschauung,  Berlin,  1873.  Th. 
Gangauf,  Des  hl.  Augustinus  spekulative  Lehre  von  Gott  dem  Dreieinigen, 
Augsburg,  1865,  2.  ed.  1883.  A.  Ritschi,  Expositio  doctrinae  Augustini 
de  creatione  mundi,  peccato,  gratia  (Diss,  inaug.),  Halle,  1843.  Fr.  Grass- 
mann, Die  Schöpfungslehre  des  hl.  Augustinus  und  Darwins,  Ratisbon, 
1889.  Fr.  Nitsch,  Augustinus'  Lehre  vom  Wunder,  Berlin,  1865.  J.  Nirschl, 
Ursprung  und  Wesen  des  Bösen  nach  der  Lehre  des  hl.  Augustinus, 
Ratisbon,    1854.     J.  Ernst ,   Die  Werke   und  Tugenden   der  Ungläubigen 


Co8  SECOND   PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 

nach  St.  Augustin,  Freiburg  i.  Br.,  1871;  Id.,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  kath.  Theol. 
(1895),  xix.  177 — 185.  J.  P.  Baltzer ,  Des  hl.  Augustinus  Lehre  über 
Prädestination  und  Reprobation,  Vienna,  1871.  A.  Kock ,  Die  Auktorität 
des  hl.  Augustin  in  der  Lehre  von  der  Gnade  und  Prädestination,  in  Theol. 
Quartalschr.  (1891),  lxxiii.  95—136  287—304  455—487.  Fr.  M.  Jaquin,  O.  P., 
La  question  de  la  predestination  aux  Ve  et  VIe  siecles :  Saint  Augustin,  in 
Revue  d'histoire  ecclesiastique  (1904).  pp.  265 — 283  725 — 754.  O.  Rott- 
manner,  Der  Augustinismus  (i.  e.  his  doctrine  on  predestination),  Munich, 
1892.  Cf.  Schanz,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1893),  Ixxv.  699 — 703,  and  Die 
Lehre  des  hl.  Augustin  über  die  Rechtfertigung,  ib.  (1901),  Ixxxiii.  481 
to  528.  J.  Tunnel,  Le  dogme  du  pdche  originel  dans  St.  Augustin,  in 
Revue  d'hist.  et  de  litter.  relig.  (1901),  vi.  235 — 258  385 — 426,  and  (1892), 
vii.  128 — 146  209 — 230.  A.  Kranich,  Über  die  Empfänglichkeit  der  mensch- 
lichen Natur  für  die  Güter  der  übernatürl.  Ordnung  nach  der  Lehre  des 
hl.  Augustin  und  des  hl.  Thomas  von  Aquin,  Paderborn,  1892.  Th.  Specht, 
Die  Lehre  von  der  Kirche  nach  dem  hl.  Augustin,  Paderborn,  1892.  The 
teaching  of  Augustine  concerning  the  Church  is  also  the  subject  of  the 
Augustinian  studies  of  H.  Renter,  Gotha,  1887.  Th.  Specht,  Die  Einheit 
der  Kirche  nach  dem  hl.  Augustinus  (Progr.),  Neuburg  a.  D.,  1885. 
E.  Co??imer ,  Die  Katholizität  nach  dem  hl.  Augustinus,  Breslau,  1873. 
0.  Rottmanner,  «Catholica»,  in  Revue  Bened.  (1900),  xvii.  1—9.  M.  M. 
Wilden,  Die  Lehre  des  hl.  Augustinus  vom  Opfer  der  Eucharistie,  Schaff- 
hausen, 1864.  Schanz,  Die  Lehre  des  hl.  Augustinus  über  das  heilige 
Sakrament  der  Buße,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1895),  lxxvii.  448—496  598 
to  621;  Id.,  Die  Lehre  des  hl.  Augustinus  über  die  Eucharistie,  ib.  (1896), 
lxxviii.  79—115.  L.  Tarchier ,  Le  sacrement  de  l'Eucharistie  d'apres 
S.  Augustin  (These),  Lyons,  1904.  O.  Scheel,  Die  Anschauung  Augustins 
über  Christi  Person  und  Werke,  Tübingen,  1901 ;  Kiel,  1902.  E.  Herzog, 
Die  kirchliche  Sündenvergebung  nach  der  Lehre   des   hl.  Augustin,  Bern, 

1902.  J.  Ernst,  Der  hl.  Augustin  über  die  Entscheidung  der  Ketzertauf- 
frage durch  ein  Plenarkonzil ,  in  Zeitschr.  für  kath.  Theol.  (1900),  xxiv. 
282  f.  S.  Protin,  La  Mariologie  de  St.  Augustin,  in  Revue  Augustinienne 
(1902),  pp.  375—396-  ■#  Blachere,  St.  Augustin  et  les  theophanies  dans 
l'ancien  Testament,  ib.,  pp.  595—613.  E.  Nourry ,  Le  miracle  d'apres 
St.  Augustin,  in  Annales  de  la  philosophie  chretienne  (1903),  pp.  375—386. 
£.   Portalie,   St.   Augustin,   in  Dictionnaire    de   Theol.    catholique,   Paris, 

1903,  col.  2268 — 2561. 

§  95.    Friends  and  disciples  of  St.  Augustine. 

I.  MARIUS  mercator.  —  This  writer  was  certainly  not  a  native 
of  Italy  (Gamier)  but  of  Africa  (Gerberon,  Baluze).  From  a  letter 
of  St.  Augustine  1  we  gather  that  about  418  and  probably  from 
Rome,  Mercator  submitted  to  the  judgment  of  the  bishop  of  Hippo 
two  anti-Pelagian  works.  In  429  Mercator  was  at  Constantinople  and 
very  probably  resided  there  during  the  next  twenty  years.  It  is 
also  probable  that  he  survived  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  (451).  He 
remained  a  layman,  or  at  least  was  never  ordained  to  the  priesthood ; 
nevertheless  he  took  an  active  part  in  the  conflict  with  Pelagianism 
and  Nestorianism  as  a  defender  of  the  teachings  of  St.  Augustine 
and  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria.    His  anti-Pelagian  writings  mentioned  by 

1  EP.  193. 


§    95-      FRIENDS    AND    DISCIPLES    OF    ST.    AUGUSTINE.  5O9 

St.  Augustine1  have  perished,  though  some  scholars  have  identified 
the  second  of  them:  librum  refertum  sanctarum  testimoniis  scriptu- 
rarum2,  with  the  Hypomnesticon  contra  Pelagianos  et  Caelestianos 
printed  among  the  Opera  S.  Augustini3.  A  Commonitorium  super 
nomine  Caelestii,  written  in  Greek  in  429  and  re-edited  in  a  Latin 
translation  in  431,  is  extant  in  Latin4.  There  is  also  extant  a  Latin 
Commonitorium  or  Adversus  haeresim  Pelagii  et  Caelestii  vel  etiam 
scripta  Juliani,  written  in  431  or  432  s.  The  first  memorial  was 
presented  by  its  author  to  Theodosius  II.  and  contributed  in  no 
small  degree  to  the  expulsion  (429)  of  the  chiefs  of  the  Pelagian 
heresy  from  Constantinople  whither  they  had  gone  after  their  com- 
pulsory departure  from  Italy;  it  helped  also  to  bring  about  their 
condemnation  at  the  Council  of  Ephesus  (431).  Mercator  wrote  also, 
early  in  43 1 ,  two  other  Latin  works  against  Nestorianism  :  Comparatio 
dogmatum  Pauli  Samosateni  et  Nestorii6,  and:  Nestorii  blasphemiarum 
capitula7;  they  are  a  refutation  of  the  twelve  counter-anathematisms 
of  Nestorius  with  which  he  had  attempted  to  combat  the  famous 
theses  of  St.  Cyril  (§  JJ,  2).  Mercator  translated  from  Greek  into 
Latin  a  number  of  large  works;  indeed,  his  translations  are  more 
numerous  than  his  original  writings.  He  not  only  prepared  trans- 
lations of  anti-heretical  works  (those  of  Nestorius  against  Pelagianism 
and  of  Cyril  against  Nestorianism),  but  he  also  put  into  Latin  many 
works  and  discourses  of  the  Greek  heresiarchs  themselves  (Theodore 
of  Mopsuestia,  Nestorius,  and  others).  His  purpose  is  expressed  in 
the  following  words  taken  from  the  preface  to  a  collection  of  ex- 
cerpta  from  the  writings  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia:  Verbum  de 
verbo  transferre  conatus  sum ,  pravum  eius  .  .  .  sensum  .  .  .  latinis 
volens  auribus  insinuare,  cavendum  modis  omnibus,  non  sequendum8. 
Similarly  in  the  preface  to  the  homilies  and  works  of  the  «impious 
Nestorius»  he  writes:  Blasphemiarum  dicta  vel  scripta  .  .  .  curavi  trans- 
ferre, a  fidelibus  linguae  meae  fratribus  cognoscenda  atque  vitanda, 
in  quibus  verbum  de  verbo,  in  quantum  fieri  potuit,  conatus  sum 
translator  exprimere9.  Many  documents  that  have  perished  in  the 
original  Greek  have  been  saved  through  the  Latin  versions  of  Mer- 
cator. His  own  works,  though  of  inferior  literary  value,  are  very  im- 
portant for  the  history  of  the  Pelagian  and  Nestorian   controversies. 

A  complete  edition  of  the  works  of  Mercator  was  brought  out  at 
Paris,  1673,  by  -J.  Gamier;  the  text  is  not  reliable,  but  copious  casti- 
gationes,  notae  and  dissertationes  are  added.  Etienne  Baluze  also  edited 
the  works  of  Mercator,  Paris,  1684.  The  Baluze  edition  is  reprinted  with 
some  corrections  in  Gallandi,  Bibl.  vet.  Patr.,  Venice,  1772,  viii.  613 — 738; 
that  of  Gamier,  with  corrections  from  Baluze  and  Gallandi,  in  Migne,  PL., 

1  lb.  2  lb.,  c.   1.  3  Migne,  PL.,  xlv.    161 1  — 1664. 

4  Ib.,  xlviii.  63 — 108.  5  Ib.,  xlviii.    109 — 172. 

6  Ib.,  xlviii.   773 — 774.  7  lb.,  xlviii.  909 — 932. 

8  Ib.,  xlviii.   213 — 214    1042  — 1043.  9  Ib.,  xlviii.   754 — 755. 


rIO  SECOND   PERIOD.      THIRD   SECTION. 

xlviii,  Paris,  1846.  The  need  of  a  new  critical  edition  has  long  been  felt. 
For  the  writings  of  St.  Cyril  and  Nestorius,  translated  by  Mercator,  see 
8^0,-  The  Gallic  monk  Leporius  had  defended  in  his  native  place 
(Trier?)  the  teachings  of  Pelagius  and  Nestorius,  but  St.  Augustine  con- 
vinced him  of  his  errors,  whereupon  he  wrote  about  418  in  Africa  a  Li- 
bellus  emendationis  sive  satisfactionis  ad  episcopos  Galliae  (Ib.,  xxxi.  1221 
to  1230).  For  other  details  concerning  Leporius  see  Schoenemann,  Bibl. 
hist.-lit.  Patr.  lat,  ii.  588 — 597.  We  have  from  the  pen  of  Aurelius,  bishop 
of  Carthage  (f  about  429),  a  circular  letter  De  damnatione  Pelagii  atque 
Caelestii  haereticorum,  written  in  419  (Ib.,  xx.  1009— 1 01 4).  Cf.  Schoene- 
mann, 1.  c,  ii.  1—7.  —  There  are  extant  two  letters  of  the  successor  of 
Aurelius,  Capreolus:  Ad  Concilium  Ephesinum,  written  in  431  (Greek  and 
Latin),  and  De  una  Christi  veri  Dei  et  hominis  persona  contra  recens 
damnatam  haeresim  Nestorii  (Ib.,  liii.  843—858).  Tillemont  says  that 
Capreolus  is  the  author  of  some  sermons  in  the  works  of  St.  Augustine 
concerning  the  devastations  of  the  Vandals;  see  the  article  Capreolus  in 
Smith  and  Wace,  Dictionary  of  Christian  Biography,  i.  400 — 4001. 

2.  OROSIUS.  —  The  Spanish  priest  Paulus  Orosius  was  probably 
born  at  Bracara  in  Gallaecia  (Braga  in  Portugal).  For  reasons  un- 
known to  us  he  left  his  fatherland  and  in  413  or  414  betook  him- 
self to  Augustine  at  Hippo.  In  414  he  dedicated  to  the  latter  his: 
Commonitorium  de  errore  Priscillianistarum  et  Origenistarum 1  (§  89,  3), 
to  which  Augustine  replied  in  his  work:  Ad  Orosium  contra  Priscil- 
lianistas  et  Origenistas  (§  94,  5).  Orosius  was  the  companion  of 
St.  Jerome  during  the  Pelagian  controversy  at  Jerusalem,  a  fact  that 
led  to  his  difficulties  with  John,  bishop  of  that  city,  who  was  on  the 
side  of  Pelagius.  Towards  the  end  of  415  he  wrote  a:  Liber  apo- 
logeticus  contra  Pelagium  de  arbitrii  libertate  2,  and  shortly  afterwards 
left  the  Holy  Land  for  Spain.  In  Minorca,  however,  he  heard  of  the 
troubled  condition  of  his  fatherland,  and  again  took  refuge  with 
Augustine,  in  whose  company  he  completed  (417 — 418)  his  principal 
work:  Historiarum  adversum  paganos  libri  septem3.  Thenceforth  all 
traces  of  Orosius  disappear;  both  the  time  and  the  place  of  his 
death  are  unknown.  The  Historiae  were  undertaken,  according  to 
the  preface,  at  the  request  of  Augustine,  and  were  meant  to  be  an 
appendix  to  the  De  civitate  Dei  (§  94,  4).  In  them  the  reader  should 
find  the  historical  proofs  that  before  the  coming  of  Christ,  mankind 
was  more  subject  to  wars,  misfortunes,  and  evils  of  every  kind  than 
since  His  appearance  on  earth ;  it  was,  therefore,  not  the  introduction 
of  Christianity  and  the  overthrow  of  paganism  that  were  responsible 
for  the  sufferings  of  the  barbarian  invasions.  It  is  from  this  stand- 
point that  Orosius  selects  his  historical  material  and  weaves  it  into 
a  chronicle-like  sketch  from  Adam  to  the  year  417.  His  chief 
sources  are  the  Sacred  Scripture,  several  Roman  historians,  and  the 
Hieronymian  recension  of  the  Chronicle  of  Eusebius.    From  the  year 


%  PL.,  xxxi.    1211  — 1216;  xlii.  665 — 670.  2  Ib.,  xxxi.    II  73 — 1212. 

3  Ib.,  xxxi.  663—  1 1 74. 


§    95-      FRIENDS   AND    DISCIPLES    OF    ST.    AUGUSTINE.  5  I  I 

378  the  work  possesses  a  special  value;  for  these  decades  Orosius 
is  a  contemporary  witness.  This  work  was  highly  appreciated  by  all 
mediaeval  writers;  the  manuscripts  that  have  reached  us  are  in  number 
about  two  hundred;  king  Alfred  of  England  (f  901)  translated  it  into 
Anglo-Saxon. 

The  Historiae  and  the  Liber  apologeticus  [Migne ,  PL.,  xxxi)  are  re- 
printed from  the  edition  oi  S.  Haver kamp,  Leyden,  1738  (1767),  the  Com- 
monitorium  (lacking  in  Haverkamp)  from  Gallandi,  Bibl.  vet.  Patr.,  ix.  174 
to  175.  We  owe  the  latest  edition  of  the  Historiae  and  the  Liber  apo- 
logeticus to  C.  Zangemeister  (Corpus  script,  eccl.  lat.  v),  Vienna,  1882.  A 
smaller  edition  of  the  Historiae  was  published  by  Zangemeister  in  the 
Bibliotheca  Teubneriana,  Leipzig,  1889.  We  have  mentioned  (§  89,  3)  the 
edition  of  the  Commonitorium  brought  out  by  G.  Schepss,  Vienna,  1889. 
King  Alfred's  Anglo-Saxon  version  was  published  by  H.  Sweet,  London, 
1883.  Cf.  H.  Schilling,  König  Alfreds  angelsächsische  Bearbeitung  der 
Weltgeschichte  des  Orosius  (Inaug.-Diss.) ,  Halle,  1886.  For  an  unedited 
letter  of  Orosius  to  Augustine  see  A.  Goldbacher,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  die  öster- 
reichischen Gymnasien  (1883),  xxxiv.  104,  note  1 ;  S.  Bäumer,  in  Litt.  Hand- 
weiser (1890),  p.  59.  Th.  de  Mörner,  De  Orosii  vita  eiusque  historiarum 
libris  VII  adversus  paganos,  Berlin,  1844.  E.  Mejean,  Paul  Orose  et  son 
apologetique  contre  les  pa'iens  (These),  Strassburg,  1862.  C.  Paucker,  Vor- 
arbeiten zur  lateinischen  Sprachgeschichte,  herausgegeben  von  H  Rönsch, 
Berlin,  1884,  part  3,  pp.  24 — 53:  De  latinitate  Orosii;  cf.  pp.  101 — 102. 
G.  Monod,  Sur  un  passage  de  Paul  Orose  (Historiae  vii.  40),  in  Melanges 
Paul  Fabre,  Paris,  1902,  pp.  17 — 22.  G.  Mercati ,  Varianti  d'un  codice 
milanese  al  «Commonitorium  de  errore  Priscillianistarum  et  Origenistarum» 
di  Paolo  Orosio,  in  Note  di  letteratura  biblica  e  cristiana  antica  (Studi  e 
Testi  v),  Rome,  1901,  p.  136.  —  While  Orosius  was  at  Jerusalem,  the 
body  of  the  holy  deacon  Stephen  was  discovered  in  December  415  by  the 
priest  Lucian  of  Kaphar  Gamala  near  Jerusalem.  The  latter  made  known 
the  fact  in  a  circular  letter  written  in  Greek  and  addressed  to  all  Chris- 
tians. It  happened  that  a  Spanish  priest,  Avitus  of  Bracara,  was  then 
resident  at  Jerusalem;  he  translated  into  Latin  the  letter  of  Lucian  (Gennad., 
De  viris  ill.,  cc.  46 — 47).  The  Greek  original  remains  still  unpublished, 
but  there  are  two  recensions  of  the  Latin  version ;  to  both  of  them  is 
prefixed  a  letter  of  Avitus  to  Balconius,  bishop  of  Bracara  [Migne,  PL., 
xli.  805—818).  A  portion  of  the  relics  was  brought  by  Orosius  to  Mi- 
norca; the  conversion  of  a  great  many  Jews  was  owing  to  the  vigorous 
awakening  of  religious  life  that  ensued;  the  history  of  these  conversions 
is  related  by  Severus,  bishop  of  Minorca,  in  a  circular  letter  dated  418:  De 
virtutibus  ad  Iudaeorum  conversionem  in  Minoricensi  insula  factis  (Ib.,  xli. 
821 — 832;  cf.  xx.  731 — 746).  —  About  the  same  time  the  monk  Bachia- 
rius,  probably  also  a  Spaniard,  wrote  two  works  De  fide  (Ib.,  xx.  10 19  to 
1036)  and  De  reparatione  lapsi  (Ib.,  xx.  1037 — 1062);  cf.  Fessler- Jungmann, 
Instit.  Patrol.,  ii  1,  418 — 421.  See  also  on  the  work  De  fide:  K.  Künstle, 
in  his  Antipriscilliana,  Freiburg,  1905.  The  assertion  of  Sigebert  of  Gem- 
bloux:  Isidorus  Cordubensis  episcopus  scripsit  ad  Orosium  libros  quatuor  in 
libros  Regum  (De  viris  ill.,  c.  51)  is  an  error.  There  never  was  an  Isidore 
of  Cordova;  cf.  Dom  Morin ,  in  Revue  des  questions  historiques  (1885), 
xxxviii.  536—547- 

3.  ST.  PROSPER  AND  HILARIUS.  —  In  428  or  429  two  zealous 
laymen  of  Provence,  Tiro  Prosper   of  Aquitania   and  Hilarius,   wrote 


512 


SECOND    PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 


each  a  letter  to  St.  Augustine  informing  him  of  the  opposition  to 
his  doctrine  on  grace  and  predestination  in  Southern  Gaul.  Augustine 
replied  in  the  De  praedestinatione  sanctorum  and  De  dono  per- 
severantiae  (§  94,  7).  Apart  from  this  letter1  we  have  no  other 
work  of  Hilarius.  On  the  other  hand,  the  letter  of  Prosper 2  is  a  kind 
of  introduction  to  a  long  series  of  prose  and  metrical  writings.  The 
ascertained  dates  of  the  life  of  Prosper  are  all  relative  to  his  literary 
labors.  He  held  it  to  be  his  special  mission  to  suppress  the  above- 
mentioned  opposition,  or  rather  to  attack  and  overthrow  a  doctrine 
that  since  mediaeval  times  has  been  known  as  Semipelagianism,  and 
which  maintained  that,  for  the  beginning  of  our  salvation  and  for 
perseverance  in  the  state  of  grace,  no  divine  aid  was  necessary.  In 
429 — 430,  Prosper  laid  down  the  state  of  the  controversy  in  a  long 
letter  to  an  otherwise  unknown  friend  Rufinus 3 ;  he  published  against 
the  Semipelagians  a  poem  of  more  than  one  thousand  hexameters 
entitled  7isp\  ayapiorcov  i.  e.  De  ingratis*;  he  wrote  also  in  elegiac 
metre  two  Epigrammata  in  obtrectatorem  Augustini,  in  reply  to  the 
attacks  of  an  anonymous  Semipelagian 5.  It  is  possible  that  the  ob- 
trectator  was  John  Cassian  (§  96,  1),  the  head  of  the  Semipelagians. 
The  term  d/dpiaroi  or  ingrati  is  applied  to  the  Semipelagians  as 
being  enemies  of  divine  grace.  After  the  death  of  Augustine  (Aug. 
28.,  430),  Prosper  and  his  friend  Hilarius  went  to  Rome  in  order 
to  obtain  from  Pope  Celestine  the  condemnation  of  Semipelagianism. 
The  pope  did  not  hesitate  to  write  to  the  bishops  of  Gaul6  warn- 
ing them  and  imposing  silence  on  the  innovators,  defending  in  grate- 
ful terms  the  memory  of  Augustine,  and  recognizing  in  a  very 
flattering  way  the  efforts  of  Prosper  and  his  friend.  Thenceforth 
Prosper  appears  as  the  anti-Pelagian  champion  specially  authorized 
by  the  Apostolic  see :  Fidem  contra  Pelagianos  ex  Apostolicae  sedis 
auctoritate  defendimus7.  In  431 — 432,  apparently,  he  wrote:  Epita- 
phium Nestorianae  et  Pelagian  ae  haereseon 8,  an  ironical  elegy  for 
the  Nestorianism  and  Pelagianism  apropos  of  the  Ephesine  decrees 
of  43 1 ;  Pro  Augustino  responsiones  ad  capitula  obiectionum  Gallorum 
calumniantium 9,  a  refutation  of  the  objections  directed  against  the 
Augustinian  doctrine  of  predestination;  Pro  Augustino  responsiones 
ad  capitula  obiectionum  Vincentianarum 10,  also  in  defence  of  the 
same  doctrine,  and  probably  against  Vincent  of  Lerins  (§  96,  4); 
Pro  Augustino  responsiones  ad  excerpta  Genuensium 11,  an  explana- 
tion   of    selected    passages    from    Augustine's    De    praedestinatione 

1  226  among  the  letters  of  Augustine;  Migne,  PL.,  xxxiii.    1007 — 1012. 

2  225  among  the  letters  of  Augustine;  Ib.,    1002  — 1007;  li.   67 — 74. 

3  Ep.  ad  Rufinum  de  gratia  et  libero  arbitrio;  Ib.,  li.   77 — 90. 

4  Ib.,  li.  91 — 148.  5  lb,  li.    149—152. 

6  Ib.,  1.   528—530;  xlv.   1755— 1756. 

7  Resp.  ad  obiect.  Vincent,  praef. ;  Migne,  PL.,  li.   178.  8  Ib.,   li.    153 — 154. 
9  Ib.,  li.   155 — 174-              10  Ib.,  li.   177—186.              »»  Ib.,  li.   187—202. 


§    95-      FRIENDS    AND    DISCIPLES    OF    ST.    AUGUSTINE.  5  1 3 

sanctorum  and  De  dono  per  sever  anliae,  written  at  the  request  of 
two  priests  of  Genoa;  De  gratia  Dei  et  libero  arbitrio  liber  contra 
Collatorem 1,  against  Cassian,  the  author  of  the  Collatiojtes,  in  the 
thirteenth  of  which  it  is  taught  that  sometimes  divine  grace  fore- 
stalls our  will  and  sometimes  our  will  forestalls  divine  grace  (§96,  1). 
It  is  probable  that  these  works  were  immediately  followed  by  a 
Chronicle  in  continuation  of  the  Chronicle  of  St.  Jerome.  It  was 
frequently  revised  and  continued  by  the  author  himself,  and  has 
reached  us  in  at  least  three  editions,  the  first  of  which  stops  at  433, 
the  second  at  445,  and  the  third  at  455.  In  the  last  form  it  is 
known  as  Chronicon  integrum2',  the  edition  of  445,  the  first  to  be 
printed,  is  known  as  the  Chronicon  vulgatum.  This  work  differs  from 
all  previous  chronicles  in  the  prominence  it  gives  to  the  history  of 
doctrine  and  heresies.  Prosper  wrote  about  433  the  Expositio  Psal- 
morum  a  100  usque  ad  ijo  3  for  which  he  drew  on  the  Enarrationes 
in  Psalmos  (§  94,  8)  of  St.  Augustine;  it  is  very  probably  only  a 
remnant  of  an  entire  commentary  on  the  Psalms.  Concerning  the 
activity  of  Prosper  in  the  years  immediately  following  we  have  no  in- 
formation. In  440  he  seems  to  have  accompanied  the  newly-elected 
pope  Leo  I.  from  Gaul  to  Rome,  and  to  have  entered  the  service  of 
the  papal  chancery.  Gennadius  says4  that  he  was  held  to  be  the 
author  of  letters  bearing  the  name  of  Leo  I.  He  published  at  Rome : 
Sententiarum  ex  operibus  S.  Augustini  delibatarum  liber 5,  a  kind  of 
summa  of  the  Augustinian  theology  in  392  sentences  drawn  from 
every  class  of  the  works  of  Augustine,  also :  Epigrammatum  ex  sen- 
tentiis  S.  Augustini 6,  one  hundred  and  six  distichs  that  exhibit  as 
many  «sentences»  from  the  above-mentioned  collection.  Many  other 
works  were  erroneously  attributed  to  him ,  among  them  the  De 
vocatiofie  omnium  gentitwi  (see  no.  5).  It  seems  that  he  died  in 
463 ;  the  Church  has  placed  him  among  her  Saints,  and  he  was 
looked  on  by  his  contemporaries  as  the  chief  disciple  of  Augustine. 
Devout  admiration  for  the  ideas  of  his  master  and  a  thorough  study 
of  them  were  his  principal  characteristics.  He  was  capable  not  only 
of  penetrating  their  depth,  but  of  expressing  them  with  elegance 
and  accuracy.  Though  he  sought  to  tone  down  somewhat  the 
harshness  and  gloominess  of  the  opinions  of  Augustine,  he  clung 
with  firmness  to  the  antecedent  (i.  e.  independent  of  divine  fore- 
knowledge of  merit)  predestination  to  eternal  life  of  a  definite  number 
of  men;  on  the  other  hand,  he  considered  non-predestination  or  re- 
probation to  be  exclusively  the  result  of  divine  fore-knowledge  of 
the  evil  deeds  of  men. 

The  best  edition   of  the  works   of  Prosper   was   issued   by   the  Bene- 
dictines  J.    B.   Le  Brim   des   Marettes   and   D.    Mangeant ,    Paris,    17 11, 

1  Ib.,  li.  213—276.  2  Ib.,  li.  535—606.  3  Ib.,  li.  277—426. 

4  De  viris  ill.,  c.   84.  5  Migne,  PL.,  li.   427—496.  e  Ib.,  li.  497~ 532- 

Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  33 


514  SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

Venice,  1744,  2  vols.;  ib.,  1782,  2  vols.  (Migne,  PL.,  li;  most  of  the  writ- 
ings of  Prosper  are  also  ib.,  xlv.  1793— 1898).  For  earlier  editions  see 
Schoenemann,  Bibl.  hist.-lit.  Patr.  lat.,  ii.  1022  ff.  in  Migne,  PL.,  li.  49  ff.  In 
Hurter,  SS.  Patr.  opusc.  sei.  (vol.  xxiv),  is  reprinted :  S.  Prosperi  Aquitani 
carmen  de  ingratis,  also  (vols,  xxxv  xxxvi) :  S.  Augustini  et  S.  Prosperi  de 
gratia  opuscula  selecta.  —  A.  Franz,  Prosper  von  Aquitanien,  in  Österr. 
Vierteljahresschr.  f.  kath.  Theol.  (1869),  viii.  355 — 392  481—524.  Z.  Va- 
lentin, St.  Prosper  d' Aquitaine,  Paris,  1900  (xii.  934  pp.);  cf.  L.  Couture, 
in  Bulletin  de  litterature  ecclesiast.  (1900),  pp.  269 — 282.  The  doctrine 
of  Prosper  is  discussed  by  Fr.  Wörter ,  Beiträge  zur  Gesch.  des  Semi- 
pelagianismus,  Paderborn,  1898.  J.  Türmet,  La  controverse  se'mipelagienne : 
I.  Saint  Augustin  et  la  controverse  semipelagienne,  in  Revue  d'hist.  et  de 
litter.  religieuses  (1904),  pp.  418—433.  A  new  edition  of  his  Chronicle 
was  brought  out  by  Th.  Mommsen,  in  Mon.  Germ.  hist.  Auct.  antiquiss., 
Berlin,  1892,  ix  1,  341 — 485.  For  later  revisions  of  this  Chronicle,  Chro- 
nicon  imperiale  {Migne,  PL.,  li.  859—866),  Prosper  Augustanus  etc., 
cf.  Teuff el- Schwabe,  Gesch.  der  röm.  Lit.,  pp.  1 176— 11 77,  and  Wattenbach, 
Deutschlands  Geschichtsquellen  im  Mittelalter,  6.  ed.,  i.  80 — 83.  The 
Chronicle  of  Prosper  was  the  basis  of  the  Paschal  Table  repared  in  437 
by  the  Aquitanian  Victorius  or  Victurius,  and  edited  anew  by  Mommsen, 
1.  c. ,  pp.  666 — 735:  Cursus  paschalis  annorum  532  ad  Hilarum  archi- 
diaconum  ecclesiae  Romanae.  For  Victorius  cf.  Teuff  el  Schwabe ,  1.  c, 
p.  1208.  That  Prosper  wrote  the  graceful  Poema  coniugis  ad  uxorem 
{Migne,  PL.,  li.  611 — 616)  is  very  doubtful;  cf.  Manitius,  Gesch.  der  christl.- 
latein.  Poesie,  pp.  211 — 212.  The  long  Carmen  de  Providentia  divina 
(Ib.,  PL.,  li.  617 — 638)  was  composed  in  Southern  Gaul  about  415  by 
some  Pelagian  or  Semipelagian ;  cf.  Ebert,  Allg.  Gesch.  der  Literatur  des 
Mittelalters  im  Abendlande,  2.  ed.,  i.  316 — 320,  and  Manitius,  1.  c,  pp.  170 
to  180.  The  Hymnus  abecedarius  against  the  anti-Trinitarians  edited  by 
A,  Boucherie,  Melanges  latins  et  bas-latins,  Montpellier,  1875,  pp.  12 — 26, 
is  not  a  work  of  Prosper.  Similarly  the  Confessio  S.  Prosperi  [Migne,  PL., 
li.  607 — 610)  is  spurious.  The  large  work  De  promissionibus  et  prae- 
dictionibus  Dei  (Ib.,  li.  753 — 838)  was  written  about  440  by  an  African, 
perhaps  known  as  Prosper.  The  so-called  Praeteritorum  sedis  Apostolicae 
episcoporum  auctoritates  de  gratia  Dei  have  usually  been  added,  since  the 
end  of  the  fifth  century,  as  an  appendix  to  the  above-mentioned  letters  of 
Celestine  to  the  bishops  of  Gaul  (Ib.,  li.  205 — 212;  1.  531 — 537),  but  it 
cannot  be  proved  that  they  are  the  work  of  Prosper.  The  popes  indicated 
in  the  title  as  praeteriti  sedis  Apostolicae  episcopi  are  Innocent  I.  (401  to 
417)  and  Zosimus  (417 — 418),  predecessors  of  Celestine  I.  (422 — 432). 
The  popes  of  this  time  are  represented  by  a  number  of  letters :  there  are 
thirty-eight  of  Innocent  I.  [Migne,  PL.,  xx.  463  ff.),  fifteen  of  Zosimus  (Ib., 
xx.  639  fr.),  nine  of  Boniface  I.  (418—422;  ib.,  xx.  749  ff.),  and  sixteen 
of  Celestine  I.  (Ib.,  1.  417  ff.).  For  more  minute  details  of  these  letters 
cf.  Jaffi,  Regesta  Pontificum  Rom.,  2.  ed.,  Leipzig,  1885,  i.  44 — 57. 
Many  early  papal  letters  were  translated  into  German  by  £.  Wenzlowsky, 
Die  Briefe  der  Päpste  (Bibl.  der  Kirchenväter),  iii.  7  ff. ;  cf.  H.  Gebhardt, 
Die  Bedeutung  Innocenz  I.  für  die  Entwicklung  der  päpstlichen  Gewalt 
(Dissert.),  Leipzig,  1901.  J.  Wittig,  Studien  zur  Geschichte  des  Papstes 
Innocenz  I.  und  der  Papstwahlen  des  5.  Jahrhunderts,  in  Theol.  Quartal- 
schrift (1902),  Ixxxiv.  388—439. 

4.  PAULINUS  OF  MILAN.  —  This  Milanese  ecclesiastic  had  been 
secretary  to  St.  Ambrose,  and  after  his  death  repaired  to  St.  Augus- 
tine in  Africa.    While  there  he  wrote  at  the  suggestion  of  the  latter 


§    96.      GALLIC    WRITERS.  515 

a  Vita  S.  Ambrosii1,  in  imitation  of  the  famous  Vita  S.  Martini 
(§  92,  1).  His  purpose,  like  that  of  Sulpicius  Severus,  was  one  of 
piety  and  edification.  Paulinus  also  wrote  Libellns  adversus  Cae- 
lestium  (§  94,  7)  Zosimo  papae  oblatus2,  and:  De  benedictionibus 
patriarcharum  libellus  3. 

The  Vita  S.  Ambrosii  is  found  in  most  editions  of  that  Saint's  works, 
e.  g.  in  the  recent  edition  of  P.  A.  Ballerini  (§  90,  9),  vi.  885—906.  For 
the  editions  of  both  Libelli  cf.  Schoenemann,  Bibl.  hist.-lit.  Patr.  lat.  ii. 
599 — 602.  A.  Papadopulos-Kerameus  published  in  the  'AvdcXexxa  iepo<roXo|At- 
-rxrjs  rza'/yoXo^lai ,  St.  Petersburg,  1891,  i.  27 — 88,  an  old  Greek  trans- 
lation of  this  life  of  St.  Ambrose.  E.  Bouvy,  Paulin  de  Milan,  in  Revue 
Augustinienne  (1902),  pp.  497 — 514. 

5.  anonymous.  —  Special  mention  is  due  to  a  work  in  two 
books  written  about  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century:  De  vocatione 
omnium  gentium4.  Unsuccessful  attempts  have  been  made  to  show 
that  it  was  written  either  by  St.  Prosper  or  by  Leo  I.  In  the  work 
which  was  highly  esteemed,  even  by  his  contemporaries,  the  author 
asks  himself  whether  and  in  what  sense  all  mankind  are  called  to 
be  saved,  and  why  only  some  men  are  saved.  He  says  in  the  first 
lines  of  his  work  (i.  1,  1)  that  his  purpose  is  to  effect  a  recon- 
ciliation between  the  Semipelagians  and  the  orthodox:  inter  de- 
fensors liberi  arbitrii  et  praedicatores  gratiae  Dei. 

This  anonymous  writer  is  usually  credited  with  the  authorship  of  the 
equally  anonymous  Epistola  ad  sacram  virginem  Demetriadem  seu  De  hu- 
militate  tractatus  [Migne,  PL.,  lv.  161 — 180),  reprinted  in  Hurler's  Opus- 
cula  selecta  iii.  Concerning  the  question  of  authorship  cf.  Ed.  Perihel, 
Papst  Leos  I.  Leben  und  Lehren,  Jena,  1843,  pp.  127 — 134.  The  teaching 
of  De  vocatione  is  discussed  by  Fr.  Wörter ,  Zur  Dogmengeschichte  des 
Semipelagianismus,  Münster,  1900,  in  Kirchengeschichtl.  Studien,  v.  2. 

§  96.     Gallic  writers. 

I.  CASSIAN.  —  John  Cassian,  abbot  at  Massilia  (Marseilles),  is 
usually  considered  the  father  of  Semipelagianism  (§  95,  3).  He  was 
born  probably  about  360,  not  in  Southern  Gaul,  but  in  «Scythia»5 
i.  e.  in  the  Dobrudscha,  of  educated  and  wealthy  parents.  He  received 
his  religious  training  in  one  of  the  monasteries  of  Bethlehem  together 
with  his  somewhat  older  friend  Germanus.  Both  were  desirous  of  a 
closer  acquaintance  with  Egypt,  the  fatherland  of  monasticism,  and 
about  385  journeyed  thither;  they  lived  seven  years  among  the  her- 
mits of  that  land,  and  then,  with  the  permission  of  their  superiors  at 
Bethlehem,  three  years  more.  On  their  departure  from  Egypt  (ex- 
pelled by  Theophilus,  patriarch  of  Alexandria?)  they  went  to  Constan- 

1  Migne,  PL.,  xiv.  27 — 46.  2  Ib.,  xx.   711  —  716;  xlv.    1724 — 1725. 

3   Gen.  xlix;  Migne,  PL.,  xx.   715 — 732. 

i  Migne,  PL.,  xvii.    1073 — 1132;  li.  647 — 722. 

5   Gennad.,  De  viris  ill.,   c.   61. 

33* 


5 1 6  SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

tinople,  where  Cassian  was  ordained  deacon  by  St.  John  Chrysostom. 
In  405  we  meet  the  two  friends  at  Rome  charged  by  the  clergy 
of  Constantinople  to  recommend  to  the  protection  of  Innocent  I. 
the  person  of  St.  John  Chrysostom  who  had  been  exiled  in  404 
for  the  second  time.  Here  Cassian  seems  to  have  been  ordained  to 
the  priesthood.  About  415  he  opened  two  monasteries  near  Mar- 
seilles, one  for  men,  the  other  for  women.  Partly  by  reason  of  this 
establishment  (though  it  was  not  the  first  in  the  West,  see  no.  2), 
and  partly  by  the  works  that  he  now  began  to  compile,  he  con- 
tributed very  much  to  the  diffusion  of  the  monastic  system,  especially 
throughout  Gaul  and  Spain.  He  died,  the  object  of  universal  venera- 
tion, about  43  5 .  In  many  places,  especially  at  Marseilles,  he  is  honor- 
ed as  a  Saint.  —  At  the  suggestion  of  Castor,  bishop  of  Apta  Julia 
in  Narbonese  Gaul,  Cassian  composed  (419 — 428)  two  large  works 
that  mutually  complete  one  another,  and  were  meant  for  the  instruc- 
tion, edification  and  consolation  of  the  monks.  The  first  was  finish- 
ed in  426  and  is  entitled:  De  institutis  coenobiorum  et  de  octo 
principalium  vitiorum  remediis  libri  xii1.  In  the  first  four  books  he 
treats  of  the  organization  and  the  rules  of  the  monasteries  in  Pales- 
tine and  Egypt;  in  the  remaining  eight  he  describes  and  denounces 
the  eight  dominant  vices  of  monastic  life:  gluttony,  incontinency, 
love  of  money,  anger,  melancholy,  weariness  (acedia),  vain  glory 
(cenodoxia),  and  arrogance.  The  second  work:  Collationes  xxiv2, 
describes  the  conversations  of  Cassian  and  his  friend  Germanus  with 
the  Egyptian  hermits.  It  was  written  and  published  in  three  sections: 
Coll.  i — x;  xi — xvii;  xviii — xxiv.  The  third  section  was  the  first 
written  and  contains  their  latest  conversations  with  the  monks  and 
the  very  lively  impressions  made  on  our  authors.  Collations  i — x 
are  posterior,  by  reason  of  their  contents,  to  Collations  xi — xxiv. 
The  third  and  last  part  was  completed  before  429.  Cassian  himself 
explains  that  the  former  work  (Instituta)  deals  with  the  external  life 
of  the  monk,  while  the  latter  (Collationes)  aims  at  his  internal  or 
spiritual  perfection :  Hi  libelli  ...  ad  exterioris  hominis  observantiam 
et  institutionem  coenobiorum  competentius  aptabuntur,  illi  vero  ad 
disciplinam  interioris  ac  perfectionem  cordis  et  anachoretarum  vitam 
atque  doctrinam  potius  pertinebunt «.  The  general  excellence  of  their 
contents,  their  popular  style  and  easy  diction  won  universal  approval 
for  both  works;  they  were  highly  prized  as  a  manual  of  monasticism. 
Eucherius  (see  no.  2),  a  friend  of  Cassian,  seems  to  have  made  a 
compendium  of  their  contents  *.  They  must  also  have  been  soon 
translated  into  Greeks.  A  Greek  excerpt  of  the  Instituta  is  publish 
ed   in  Migne«.     There   are,    however,    in   both  works  some  chapters 

1  Migne,  PL.,  xlix.   53—476.  2  ß,     rfk    47y_I328 

»  Instit.,  ii.  9.  «   Gennadmt  De  viris  jjj ^  c    63  5  phot     BibL  Cod    i97 

PG.,  xxviii.  849—906,  and  in  Latin,  PL.,  1.  867—894. 


§   g6.      GALLIC   WRITERS.  51/ 

that  are  Semipelagian  in  character  and  tendency,  and  must,  there- 
fore, have  scandalized  the  friends  and  followers  of  Augustine  (§  95,  3); 
this  is  particularly  the  case  with  Collation  xiii;  De  protectione  Dei. 
In  it  are  found  the  following  phrases:  (Deus)  cum  in  nobis  ortum 
quendam  bonae  voluntatis  inspexerit,  illuminat  earn  confestim  atque 
confortat  et  incitat  ad  salutem,  incrementum  tribuens  ei  quam  vel 
ipse  plantavit  vel  nostro  conatu  viderit  emersisse  (c.  8);  ut  autem 
evidentius  clareat  etiam  per  naturae  bonum,  quod  beneficio  creatoris 
indultum  est,  nonnunquam  bonarum  voluntatum  prodire  principia, 
quae  tarnen,  nisi  a  Domino  dirigantur,  ad  consummationem  virtutum 
pervenire  non  possunt,  apostolus  testis  est  dicens1:  velle  enim  ad- 
iacet  mihi,  perficere  autem  bonum  non  invenio  (c.  9) ;  sin  vero  a 
gratia  Dei  semper  inspirari  bonae  voluntatis  principia  dixerimus,  quid 
de  Zachaei  fide,  quid  de  iljius  in  cruce  latronis  pietate  dicemus,  qui 
desiderio  suo  vim  quandam  regnis  caelestibus  inferentes  specialia 
vocationis  monita  praevenerunt  ?  (c.  11 .)  The  teaching  of  the  Church 
with  which  he  is  here  in  evident  opposition,  was  on  another  occasion 
vigorously  defended  by  him.  At  the  request  of  Pope  Leo  the  Great, 
then  a  Roman  deacon,  he  took  up  his  pen  for  the  third  time  and 
wrote  (430 — 431)  a  work  in  seven  books  De  incarnatione  Domini 
contra  Nestorium2. 

The  works  of  Cassian  were  first  edited  by  AL  Gazaeus  (Gazet),  Douai, 
1616,  and  have  often  been  reprinted  from  that  edition  (Migne,  PL.,  xlix  1). 
The  latest  and  best  edition  is  that  of  M.  Petschenig,  Vienna,  1886  — 1888, 
2  vols.  (Corpus  script,  eccles.  lat.  xiii  xvii).  The  Epistola  S.  Castoris  ad 
Cassianum  [Migne,  PL.,  xlix.  53 — 54)  made  known  by  Gazaeus,  is  de- 
scribed as  spurious  by  Petschenig,  i  (1888),  Proleg.  cxi  f.  K.  Wotke  began 
(Vienna,  1898)  a  new  edition  of  the  above-mentioned  excerpt  from  Cas- 
sian's  Instituta.  Cf.  Fr.  Diekamp ,  in  Rom.  Quartalschr.  für  christliche 
Altertumskunde  und  für  Kirchengesch.  (1900),  xiv.  341 — 355.  A  German 
translation  of  all  three  works  of  Cassian  was  prepared  by  A.  Abt  and 
K.  Kohlhund,  Kempten,  1879,  2  v0^s-  (Bibliothek  der  Kirchenväter); 
cf.  C.  v.  Paucker ,  Die  Latinität  des  Johannes  Cassianus,  in  Romanische 
Forschungen,  Erlangen,  1886,  ii.  391 — 448.  For  the  arguments  concerning 
the  (disputed)  birth-place  of  Cassian  see  A.  Hoch,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr. 
(1900),  lxxxii.  43 — 69  (Syria),  and  S.  Merkte,  ib.,  pp.  419 — 441  (Dobrudscha). 
A.  Hoch,  Lehre  des  Johannes  Cassianus  von  Natur  und  Gnade,  Freiburg 
i.  Br.,  1895;  cf.  Fr.  Wörter,  Beiträge  zur  Dogmengeschichte  des  Semi- 
pelagianismus,  Paderborn,  1898.  O.  Abel,  Studien  zu  dem  gallischen  Pres- 
byter Johannes  Cassianus  (Diss.),  Erlangen,  1904.  —  Early  in  the  fifth 
century  a  Gallic  priest  and  monk,  Evagrius  (Gennad.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  50; 
Sulpic.  Sev.,  Dial.  iii.  1,  4;  2,  8)  published  an  Altercatio  Simonis  Judaei 
et  Theophili  Christiani,  in  which  the  objections  of  the  Jew  are  solved  by 
the  Christian  interlocutor  (Migne,  PL.,  xx.  1 165— 1 182);  it  was  more  cor- 
rectly edited  (1883)  by  A.  Harnack ,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  i  3, 
1 — 136.  The  work  is  evidently  dependent  on  the  dialogue  of  Aristo, 
«Jason  and  Papiscus»  (§  16);  it  is  not,  however,  as  Harnack  (1.  c.)  main- 
tained, a  mere  translation    or  revision  of  that  work.     Cf.  P.  Corssen,  Die 

1  Rom.  vii.   18.  2  Migne,  PL.,  1.  9 — 272. 


5  1 8  SECOND   PERIOD.      THIRD   SECTION. 

Altercatio  Sim.  lud.  et  Theop.  Christ,  auf  ihre  Quellen  geprüft,  Berlin, 
1890;  Th.  Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  etc. 
(1891),  iv.  308— 329;  P.  Batiffol,  in  Revue  Biblique  (1899),  viii.  337  —  345; 
G.  Morin,  in  Revue  d'histoire  ecclCsiastique  (1900),  i.  267 — 273,  and  in 
Revue  Benedictine  (1902),  xix.  243—245.  Evagrii  Altercatio  legis  inter 
Simonem  Iudaeum  et  Theophilum  Christianum.  Recensuit  Eduardus  Bratke 
(Corpus  scriptorum  eccles.  latinorum,  vol.  xxxxv),  Vienna,  1904. 

2.  ST.  HONOR ATUS  OF  ARLES  AND  ST.  EUCHERIUS  OF  LYONS.  — 
The  second  part  of  the  Collationes  of  Cassian  (xi — xvii)  is  dedicated 
to  the  monks  (fratres)  Honoratus  and  Eucherius.  Honoratus,  a  man 
of  noble  birth,  had,  early  in  the  fifth  century,  created  a  nourishing 
centre  of  monastic  life  in  the  isle  of  Lerinum  or  Lirinum  (now 
St.  Honore),  the  second  largest  of  the  group  of  islets  off  the  south- 
eastern coast  of  Gaul,  that  had  previously  been  an  abandoned  solitude 
inhabited  only  by  serpents.  About  426  he  was  called  to  the  ancient 
and  famous  metropolitan  see  of  Aries,  where  (in  428  or  early  in 
429)  his  beneficent  labors  were  cut  short  by  death.  His  writings, 
the  rule  of  his  monastery,  and  his  apparently  very  extensive  cor- 
respondence are  known  to  us  only  by  quotations  and  references.  — 
About  410  Eucherius,  also  of  noble  descent  and  father  of  a  family, 
joined  the  pious  brotherhood  at  Lerinum;  he  afterwards  retired  to 
the  neighboring  and  larger  island  of  Lero  (now  Ste.  Marguerite). 
About  424  he  was  elected  bishop  of  Lyons,  but  we  know  nothing 
of  his  episcopal  life.  He  died,  according  to  Gennadius  *,  between 
450  and  455.  Apart  from  the  above-mentioned  (see  no.  1)  excerpt 
of  the  writings  of  Cassian,  Eucherius  left  two  letters  laudatory  of 
the  monastic  state:  De  laude  eremi  ad  Hilarium  Lirinensem  presby- 
terum  epistola 2,  and :  Epistola  paraenetica  ad  Valerianum  cognatum 
de  contemptu  mundi  et  saecularis  philosophiae 3,  also  two  larger 
works  introductory  to  the  science  of  Sacred  Scripture:  Formularum 
spiritalis  intelligentiae  ad  Veranum  liber  unus4,  and:  Instructionum 
ad  Salonium  libri  duo5;  Veranus  and  Salonius  were  the  sons  of  the 
author.  These  Formulae  spiritalis  intelligentiae ,  explanatory  of  the 
figurative  terms  and  phrases  of  the  Bible,  became  very  popular  works. 
Eucherius  is  also  very  probably  the  author  of  the  much-disputed 
account  of  the  martyrdom  of  the  Theban  Legion:  Passio  Agaunen- 
sium  martyrum,  SS.  Mauricii  ac  sociorum  eius6,  a  martyrdom  which 
the  latest  researches  have  shown  to  be  beyond  doubt  a  real  event  in 
the  early  period  of  the  persecution  of  Diocletian.  In  the  small  col- 
lection of  homilies 7  the  genuine  and  the  spurious  are  found  together. 
The  authenticity  of  a  letter :  Ad  Faustum  s.  Faustinum  de  situ  Iudaeae 
urbisque  Hierosolymitanae  (lacking  in  Migne)  is  uncertain.     A  letter 

1   Gennad.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  63.  2  Migne,  PL.,  1.   701—712. 

3  Ib.,  1.   711  —  726.  4  Ib.,  1.  727—772,  an  enlarged  text. 

6  Ib.,  1.   773—822.  e  Ib.,  1.  827—832. 

7  Ib.,  1.  833-868   1207— 1212. 


§    96.      GALLIC    WRITERS.  5 19 

Ad  Philonem  *  and  extensive  commentaries  on  Genesis 2  and  on  the 
Books  of  Kings3  are  considered  to  be  spurious. 

Our  principal  authority  for  the  life  of  St.  Honoratus  is  a  funeral  dis- 
course by  Hilarius  of  Aries  (see  no.  3) ;  cf.  Bardenheiver,  in  Wetzer  und 
Weites  Kirchenlexikon,  2.  ed.,  s.  v.  Honoratus  von  Aries.  —  For  the 
editions  of  the  works  of  St.  Eucherius  see  Schoenemann,  Bibl.  hist.-lit.  Patr. 
lat.,  ii.  775 — 795  (Migne,  PL.,  1.  687—698).  A  new  edition  was  under- 
taken by  K.  Wotke,  part  I,  Vienna,  1894  (Corpus  script,  eccles.  lat.  xxxi). 
The  Formulae  spiritalis  intelligentiae  are  interpolated  and  falsified  in  most 
of  the  manuscripts.  The  original  text  is  given  by  Wotke,  1.  c,  pp.  1  —  62. 
For  a  later  excerpt  of  this  text  cf.  Wotke,  Praef.,  xvi.  The  Passio  Agaunensium 
martyrum  was  also  edited  by  Br.  Krusch ,  in  Monum.  Germ.  hist,  script, 
rer.  Meroving.  (1896),  iii.  20 — 41 ;  on  the  literature  about  this  martyrdom 
see  A.  Hirschma?in,  in  Hist.  Jahrbuch  (1892),  xiii.  783 — 798.  Cf.  R.  Berg, 
Der  hl.  Mauricius  und  die  thebäische  Legion,  Halle,  1895.  The  letter  Ad 
Faustinum  de  situ  Iudeae  is  re-edited  by  P.  Geyer,  Itinera  Hierosolymitana, 
Vienna,  1898,  pp.  123 — 134.  K.  Wotke  also  edited  the  beginning  of  the 
commentary  on  Gen.  i  to  iv.  1,  Vienna,  1897.  On  Eucherius  in  general 
cf.  A.  Mellier,  De  vita  et  scriptis  S.  Eucherii  Lugdun.  episc.  (These),  Lyons, 
1878.  A.  Gouilloud,  St.  Eucher,  Lerins  et  l'eglise  de  Lyon  au  Ve  siecle, 
Lyons,  1881.  —  The  two  sons  of  our  Saint,  Salonius  and  Veranus,  were 
also  bishops,  of  Geneva  and  Vence  respectively.  Salonius  wrote  Exposi- 
tiones  mysticae  in  Parabolas  Salomonis  [Migne,  PL.,  liii.  967 — 994),  and 
in  Ecclesiasten  (Ib.,  liii.  993 — 1012),  in  the  form  of  a  dialogue  hetween 
Salonius  and  Veranus.  Among  the  letters  of  Leo  I.  (as  no.  68;  Ib.,  liii. 
887 — 890)  is  one  addressed  to  this  pope  by  the  bishops  Ceretius  (of  Gre- 
noble), Salonius  and  Veranus.  M.  Besson,  Un  eveque  exegete  de  Geneve 
au  milieu  du  V9  siecle:  Saint  Salone,  in  «Anzeiger  für  Schweizerische  Ge- 
schichte» (1904),  pp.  252 — 265.  —  There  is  exstant  a  letter  of  the  priest 
Rusticus  to  Eucherius,  written  to  thank  the  latter  for  the  permission  to 
copy  two  of  his  works,  probably :  Instructionum  ad  Salonium  libri  duo  (lb., 
lviii.  489 — 490;  Wotke,  S.  Euch.  Lugd.  op.,  i.  198 — 199).  The  author  of 
this  letter  is  identified  by  some  with  that  Rusticus  of  Bordeaux  who  ap- 
pears in  the  letters  of  Apollinaris  Sidonius  (ii.  11;  viii.  11),  and  by  others 
(among  them  Wotke)  with  Rusticus,  bishop  of  Narbonne  (427 — 461). 

3.  hilarius  OF  ARLES.  —  Hilarius  was  induced  by  Abbot  Hono- 
ratus (see  no.  2)  to  embrace  the  monastic  life  at  Lerins,  and  was 
scarcely  thirty  years  of  age  when  he  succeeded  (428  or  early  in  429) 
his  master  in  the  metropolitan  see  of  Aries.  In  the  letter  of  Prosper 
to  Augustine  (§  95,  3)  concerning  the  opponents  of  the  doctrine  of 
Augustine  on  grace  and  predestination,  Hilarius  is  mentioned,  but  in 
a  manner  very  flattering  to  him:  Unum  eorum  praecipuae  auctori- 
tatis  et  spiritualium  studiorum  virum,  sanctum  Hilarium  Arelatensem 
episcopum,  sciat  beatitudo  tua  admiratorem  sectatoremque  in  aliis 
omnibus  tuae  esse  doctrinae 4.  Among  the  events  of  his  later  life  we 
may  mention  the  discreditable  conflict  of  Hilarius  with  Pope  Leo  I., 
in  his  quality  of  vicar  of  the  Apostolic  See  in  Southern  Gaul.  In 
consequence  he  lost  for  his  own  person  the   privileges   accorded   to 

1  Ib.,  1.   1213— 1214.  2  Ib.,  1.  893—1048. 

3  Ib.,  1.   1047—1208.  4  S.  Aug.,  Ep.  225,  9. 


520 


SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 


the  metropolitan  see  of  Aries,  and  even  his  archiepiscopal  office. 
He  died  according  to  Gennadius1  between  450  and  455.  Among 
his  works  Gennadius2  praises  the  Vita  S.  Honor ati praedecessoris  suis, 
a  discourse  delivered,  probably  in  430,  on  the  anniversary  of  the 
death  of  St.  Honoratus.  The  other  writings  of  Hilarius  are  not  in- 
dividually described  by  Gennadius;  they  are  according  to  the  Vita 
S.  Hilarii  Arelat.4:  homiliae  in  totius  anni  festivitatibus  expeditae, 
symboli  expositio  ambienda,  epistolarum  vero  tantus  numerus,  versus 
etiam  fontis  ardentis.  The  editions  of  his  writings  contain,  beside 
the  Vita  S.  Honorati,  only  a  brief  letter  to  Eucherins  of  Lyons5, 
and  three  opuscula  dubia:  Sermo  seu  narratio  de  miraculo  S.  Genesii 
martyris  Arelat.  6,  and  two  poems  already  mentioned  (§  87,  8) :  Versus 
in  natali  Machabaeorum  martyrum7  and:  Metrum  in  Genesim  ad 
Leonem  papam8. 

The  edition  of  the  writings  of  Hilarius  in  Migne  (PL.,  1)  is  incomplete. 
We  have  already  mentioned  (§  61,  2)  his  homilies;  of  the  Versus  fontis 
ardentis  (St.  Barthelemy  near  Grenoble)  four  are  extant,  cf.  Manitius,  Ge- 
schichte der  christl.-latein.  Poesie,  Stuttgart,  1891,  pp.  188  f.  The  letter 
to  Eucherius  was  re-edited  by  Wotke ,  S.  Euch.  Lugd.  op.,  i.  197 — 198. 
The  dubious  hymns  on  the  Maccabees  and  the  beginning  of  Genesis  were 
lately  (1891)  edited  by  Peiper  (§  87,  8).  The  exposition  of  the  seven 
Catholic  epistles,  published  in  Spicilegium  Casinense  (1897),  iii  1,  and  at- 
tributed to  our  Hilarius,  is  of  very  doubtful  provenance.  —  The  above- 
mentioned  Vita  S.  Hilarii  Arelat.  [Migne,  PL.,  1.  12 19 — 1246)  is  usually 
attributed  to  Honoratus,  bishop  of  Marseilles,  contemporary  of  Pope  Ge- 
lasius  (492 — 496).  This  Honoratus  did  write  (Gennad.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  99) 
many  homilies  and  also  lives  of  «holy  Fathers» :  Sanctorum  quoque  patrum 
vitas,  praecipue  nutritoris  sui  Hilarii  Arelatensis  episcopi.  Cf.  Barden- 
hewer ,  in  Kirchenlexikon  of  Wetzer  and  Weite,  2.  ed.,  s.  v.  Honoratus 
von  Marseille.  —  St.  Lupus,  a  brother  in  law  of  St.  Hilarius  and  (427  to 
479)  bishop  of  Troyes,  seems  to  have  carried  on  an  extensive  correspon- 
dence of  which  there  remains  but  one  letter  addressed  to  Talasius,  bishop 
of  Angers  (Migne,  PL.,  lviii.  66—68),  by  Lupus  in  common  with  Euphro- 
nius ,  bishop  of  Autun.  The  letter  of  Lupus  congratulating  his  friend 
Apollinaris  Sidonius  (Ib.,  lvii.  63—65)  on  his  election  as  bishop  of  Clermont 
(about  470),  is  a  forgery  of  Vignier;  cf.  §  3,  2. 

4.  VINCENT  OF  LERINUM.  —  A  little  work  of  Vincentius,  a  priest 
and  monk  of  Lerinum ,  met  with  extraordinary  success.  In  434  he 
composed  under  the  pseudonym  of  Peregrinus  two  Commonitoria 
(memoranda)  destined,  he  tells  us,  to  aid  his  weak  memory,  and  to 
remind  him  for  ever  of  the  teachings  of  the  holy  Fathers.  The  first 
book  treats  of  the  marks  by  which  the  true  Catholic  faith  may  be 
distinguished  from  heretical  novelties.  The  second  book  applies  these 
criteria   to   a   concrete   example,    the    condemnation   of  Nestorianism 

1  De  viris  ill.,  c.  69.  2  lb  3  Migm>  pL ^  L    I249_I272< 

4  c.   11,  n.   14;  Migne,  PL.,  1.   1232.  »  Ib.,  1.   1271  — 1272. 

6  Ib.,  1.    1273— 1276.  7  lb,  1.   i275_I286. 

8  lb,  1.   1287 — 1292. 


§    96.      GALLIC    WRITERS.  521 

that  had  taken  place  at  Ephesus  «about  three  years  ago»  (c.  42). 
This  second  work  has  perished;  there  remains,  however,  the  index 
of  the  contents  of  both  works  united  (as  cc.  41 — 43)  at  a  very  early 
date,  with  the  first  book  and  making  one  work  with  it.  The  little 
treatise  is  written  in  simple,  clear,  and  relatively  correct  style  and 
develops  properly  the  fundamental  principles  of  positive  dogmatic 
demonstration.  The  words :  Magnopere  curandum  est  ut  id  teneamus 
quod  ubique,  quod  semper,  quod  ab  omnibus  creditum  est;  hoc  est 
etenim  vere  proprieque  catholicum  (c.  3),  have  become  a  household 
word  of  Catholic  theology.  Similarly  the  phrase :  Crescat  igitur  oportet 
et  multum  vehementerque  proficiat  tarn  singulorum  quam  omnium, 
tarn  unius  hominis  quam  to  this  ecclesiae  aetatum  ac  saeculorum  gra- 
dibus  intelligentia,  scientia,  sapientia,  sed  in  suo  dumtaxat  genere,  in 
eodem  scilicet  dogmate,  eodem  sensu  eademque  sententia  (c.  28). 
The  correctness  of  these  principles  is  not  affected  by  the  inexact 
application  of  them  made  by  Vincentius  himself;  in  some  passages 
of  his  work  he  is  out-spokenly  Semipelagian.  He  refers,  no  doubt, 
to  Augustine  and  his  followers  when  he  speaks  of  certain  heretics 
(haeretici)  who  dare  to  teach,  quod  in  ecclesia  sua  .  .  .  magna  et 
specialis  et  plane  personalis  quaedam  sit  Dei  gratia,  adeo  ut  sine 
ullo  labore  .  .  .  etiamsi  nee  petant  nee  quaerant  nee  pulsent,  qui- 
cumque  illi  ad  numerum  suum  pertinent,  tarnen  ita  divinitus  dispen- 
sentur  ut  .  .  .  numquam  possint  orTendere  (c.  37).  Augustine  had 
written1:  falluntur  qui  putant  esse  a  nobis,  non  dari  nobis,  ut  petamus, 
quaeramus,  pulsemus.  It  is  very  probable  that  this  little  work,  in 
spite  of  its  apparently  harmless  introductory  words,  was  written  as 
a  controversial  reply  to  the  doctrine  of  Augustine ;  the  author's  use  of 
a  pseudonym  is  already  suggestive  of  a  certain  polemical  tendency, 
while  the  work  of  Prosper  against  Vincentius  (§  95,  3)  leads  us  to 
suspect  that  the  author  of  the  Commonitoria  was  still  further  involved 
in  the  conflict  with  Augustinism. 

The  Commonitorium  of  Vincentius  has  gone  through  innumerable  edi- 
tions. The  best  is  that  of  Etienne  Baluze ,  in  an  appendix  to  his  edition 
of  Salvianus  of  Marseilles,  Paris,  1663  1669  1684  (Migne,  PL.,  1.  637 — 686, 
and  in  Hurler's  Opuscula  selecta,  ix).  A  separate  edition  with  many  notes 
was  isued  by  E.  Klilpfel,  Vienna,  1809.  A  new  edition  for  academic  use 
is  that  of  A.  Jülicher,  Sammlung  ausgewählter  kirchen-  und  dogmengeschicht- 
licher Quellenschriften,  x,  Freiburg  i.  Br. ,  1895.  It  was  translated  into 
German  by  U.  Uhl,  Kempten,  1870  (Bibl.  der  Kirchenväter).  Cf.  Hefele, 
Beiträge  zur  Kirchengesch.,  Archäol.  u.  Liturgik,  Tübingen,  1864,  i.  145 
to  174.  W.  S.  Reilly,  «Quod  ubique,  quod  semper,  quod  ab  omnibus». 
Etude  sur  la  regle  de  foi  de  St.  Vincent  de  Lerins  (These),  Tours,  1903.  — 
There  is  no  foundation  for  the  hypothesis  of  Poirel  that  Vincentius  of 
Lerinum  is  identical  with  Marius  Mercator  (§  95,  1),  and  that  the  second 
Commonitorium  may  be  reconstructed  from  the  latter's  writings :  R.  M.  J. 
Poirel,   De   utroque  Commonitorio  Lirinensi  (These),   Nancy,  1895;   Vin- 

1  De  dono  persev.  23,  64. 


5 22  SECOND   PERIOD.      THIRD   SECTION. 

centii  Peregrini  seu  alio  nomine  Marii  Mercatoris  Lirinensia  Commonitoria 
duo,  Nancy,  1898.  See  a  reply  to  Poirel  by  H.  Koch,  in  Theol.  Quartal- 
schrift  (1899),  lxxxi.  396—434. 

5.  VALERIANUS  OF  CEMELE.  —  Twenty  homilies  of  Valerianus, 
bishop  (about  450)  of  Cemele,  a  city  near  Nice  that  has  long  since 
disappeared,  mostly  ascetical  in  contents,  have  been  preserved1; 
likewise  his:  Epistola  ad  monachos  de  virtutibus  et  ordine  doctrinae 
apostolicae  2. 

The  first  of  these  homilies,  De  bono  disciplinae,  was  originally  printed 
among  the  works  of  Augustine  {Migne ,  PL.,  xl.  1219 — 1222).  Both  the 
homilies  and  the  letter  were  first  edited  by  J.  Sirmond,  Paris,  161 2.  For 
later  editions  and  the  controversy  concerning  the  orthodoxy  of  Valerianus 
cf.  Schoenemann,  Bibl.  hist.-lit.  Patr.  lat.,  ii.  814 — 822  (Migne,  PL.,  lii.  686 
to  690).  N.  Schack,  De  Valeriano  saeculi  v.  homileta  christiano,  Kopen- 
hagen, 1 8 14.  —  The  bishop  Maximus,  whose  letter  to  Theophilus  of 
Alexandria  (385 — 412)  was  first  edited  (187 1)  by  A.  Reifferscheid  and  then 
(1877)  by  L.  Delisle ,  was  probably  an  inhabitant  of  South-eastern  Gaul. 
G.  Morin,  La  lettre  de  l'eveque  Maxime  ä  Theophile  d'Alexandrie ,  in 
Revue  Bened.  (1894),  xi.  274 — 278. 

§  97.    Pope  St.  Leo  the  Great  and  other  Italian  writers. 

I.  LIFE  OF  LEO  THE  GREAT.  —  Leo  I.  takes  his  place  beside 
Gregory  I.  as  the  greatest  of  the  popes  of  Christian  antiquity.  The 
time  and  place  of  his  birth  are  not  known  with  certainty.  As  early 
as  the  time  of  Celestine  I.  (422 — 432)  he  was  a  deacon  of  the  Apo- 
stolic See,  highly  esteemed  and  influential.  In  the  preface  to  his  De 
incarnatione  Domini  (430  or  431)  John  Cassian  calls  him:  Romanae 
ecclesiae  ac  divini  ministerii  decus.  During  his  absence  in  Gaul  on 
a  delicate  political  mission,  Sixtus  III.  (432 — 440).  died,  and  Leo  was 
elected  pope.  He  was  consecrated  on  his  return  to  Rome  (Sept.  29., 
440).  It  was  a  troublous  and  a  trying  hour.  On  the  one  hand,  the 
Roman  empire  was  overrun  by  hordes  of  barbarians,  and  on  the 
other,  the  powerful  external  bulwark  of  ecclesiastical  unity  was  in 
danger  of  collapsing.  In  the  East  Eutychianism  or  Monophysitism, 
the  doctrine  of  one  composite  nature  in  Christ,  lifted  its  head  threaten- 
ingly, and  together  with  this  new  heresy  the  Byzantine  jealousy  of 
Old  Rome  grew  more  bold  perhaps  than  at  any  previous  period. 
Leo  seemed  as  though  born  for  the  needs  of  his  time.  He  saw 
that  the  only  hope  of  saving  all  the  interests  involved  lay  in  the 
full  realization  and  development  of  the  papal  primacy,  the  foundation 
of  ecclesiastical  unity.  This  idea  fills  his  mind  and  thoroughly  do- 
minates him.  He  develops  in  its  service  a  marvellous  energy  and  a 
world-embracing  activity.  Though  he  never  deviates  from  his  purpose, 
he  chooses  his  means  with  prudence,  and  in  practical  matters  ex- 
hibits both  equity  and  moderation;    in   matters  of  doctrine  he  is  al- 

1  Migne,  PL,  lii.  691—756.  2  Ib.,  lii.  755—758. 


§    97-      P0PE    ST-    LE0    THE    GREAT    AND    OTHER    ITALIAN   WRITERS.      523 

ways  firm  and  unchangeable;  at  the  same  time  he  is  a  dexterous 
theologian  and  a  skilful  diplomat.  It  is  in  his  relations  with  the  East 
that  his  greatness  is  most  easily  perceived.  His  letter  to  Flavian, 
patriarch  of  Constantinople1,  (June  13.,  449),  was  the  polar  star  of 
the  Catholics  during  the  Monophysite  controversies.  He  was  the  first 
to  denounce  as  a  latrocinium  the  Ephesine  Synod  of  449 2,  and  the 
opprobrious  epithet  has  been  sanctioned  by  posterity.  He  willingly 
sanctioned  the  doctrinal  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  (451), 
but  he  rejected  with  decision  the  twenty-eighth  canon  of  that  Council 
in  which  the  see  of  Constantinople  was  guaranteed  a  superior  dignity 
at  the  expense  of  the  other  patriarchal  sees  of  the  East.  He  saved 
old  Rome  also  from  external  dangers:  he  induced  Attila  (452)  to 
abandon  his  designs  on  Rome  and  retire,  and  he  persuaded  Genseric 
(455)  to  spare  at  least  the  lives  of  the  Romans.  It  was  only  natural 
that  by  such  great  deeds  the  temporal  authority  and  the  political 
importance  of  the  Holy  See  should  be  increased;  and  thus  it  is 
that  the  pontificate  of  Leo  opens  a  new  epoch  in  the  history  of  the 
papacy.  Leo  died  Nov.  10.,  461,  honored  by  all  for  his  glorious 
services  to  the  Church.  He  was  soon  venerated  as  a  Saint,  and 
Benedict  XIV.  placed  him  (1754)  among  the  doctor  es  ecclesiae. 

2.  THE  WRITINGS  OF  LEO.  —  They  are  partly  homilies  and  partly 
letters.  Of  the  former  there  are  one  hundred  and  sixteen  in  the 
classic  edition  of  the  Ballerini  brothers;  of  these  ninety-six  are  genuine3 
and  twenty  are  either  spurious  or  of  doubtful  authenticity4.  The 
genuine  homilies  belong  entirely  to  the  period  of  his  pontificate. 
Most  of  them  are  festal  discourses,  delivered  on  feast  days  of  our 
Lord  or  of  the  Saints.  The  first  five  were  preached  on  the  occasion 
of  the  anniversary  of  his  election  to  the  See  of  Peter,  many  others 
during  Lent  or  the  Ember  days.  They  are  free  from  all  prolixity,  at 
times  even  strikingly  brief.  Their  style  is  solemn  and  elevated,  and 
Latin  scholars  admire  the  purity  of  their  diction.  Theologians  read 
them  with  delight,  for  they  are  filled  with  splendid  testimonies  to 
the  papal  primacy,  its  divine  establishment,  its  uninterrupted  activity, 
and  the  fulness  of  authority  for  which  it  stands.  On  one  of  the  anni- 
versaries of  his  election,  he  spoke  as  follows:  In  persona  humilitatis 
meae  ille  intelligatur,  ille  honoretur,  in  quo  et  omnium  pastorum 
sollicitudo  cum  commendatarum  sibi  ovium  custodia  perseverat,  et 
cuius  dignitas  etiam  in  indigno  haerede  non  deficit5.  On  a  similar 
occasion:  De  toto  mundo  unus  Petrus  eligitur,  qui  et  universarum 
gentium  vocationi  et  omnibus  apostolis  cunctisque  ecclesiae  patribus 
praeponatur,  ut  quamvis  in  populo  Dei  multi  sacerdotes  sint  multi- 
que  pastores,  omnes  tarnen  proprie  regat  Petrus,  quos  principaliter 
regit  et  Christus6.     On   the   natal  day  (i.  e.    of  martyrdom)   of  the 

1  Ep.  28.  2  Ep.  95,  2.  3  Migne,  PL.,  liv.   137—468. 

4  Ib.,  liv.  477 — 522.  5  Sermo  3,  4.  6  Sermo  4,   2. 


524  SECOND    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

apostles  Peter  and  Paul  Leo  thus  apostrophizes  the  Eternal  City: 
Isti  sunt  qui  te  ad  hanc  gloriam  provexerunt,  ut  gens  sancta,  populus 
electus,  civitas  sacerdotalis  et  regia,  per  sacram  beati  Petri  sedem 
caput  orbis  effecta,  latius  praesideres  religione  divina  quam  domina- 
tione  terrena.  Quamvis  enim  multis  aucta  victoriis  ius  imperii  tui 
terra  marique  protuleris,  minus  tarnen  est  quod  tibi  bellicus  labor 
subdidit  quam  quod  pax  Christiana  subiecit  *.  —  The  correspondence 
of  Leo,  if  we  include  certain  extraneous  elements,  amounts  to  one 
hundred  and  seventy-three  letters 2.  Of  these  one  hundred  and  forty- 
three  bear  the  name  of  the  pope,  and  cover  the  period  from  442  to 
460.  They  are  all  official  in  character;  most  of  them  were  evidently 
not  written  by  Leo  himself,  but  are  the  product  of  the  papal  chancery. 
They  deal  in  great  part  with  canonical  or  disciplinary  questions; 
some  of  them  are  written  in  defence  of  the  ecclesiastical  doctrine 
concerning  the  person  of  our  Reedemeer,  against  the  Monophysites ; 
others  describe  the  history  of  the  Robber-Synod  of  Ephesus,  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon,  and  correlated  events;  others  deal  with  the 
chronology  of  Easter,  especially  the  paschal  dates  for  the  years  444 
and  445,  in  which  there  was  manifest  a  divergence  between  the 
Roman  and  the  Alexandrine  methods  of  computation.  Special  men- 
tion is  owing  to  the  above-mentioned  twenty-eighth  letter  to  Flavian 
of  Constantinople,  known  as  the  Epistola  dogmatica ;  it  was  received 
with  enthusiastic  praise  and  applause  by  the  Fathers  at  Chalcedon, 
and  hailed  by  them  as  a  faithful  expression  of  the  faith  of  the 
Church3.  In  this  letter  the  pope  explains  at  full  length,  on  the 
basis  of  ecclesiastical  tradition,  and  with  incomparable  clearness  and 
precision,  the  doctrines  of  the  unity  of  person  and  of  the  duality  of 
natures  in  the  Redeemer,  doctrines  that  had  been  denied  respectively 
by  Nestorius  and  Eutyches :  Ingreditur  ergo  haec  mundi  infima  filius 
Dei,  de  coelesti  sede  descendens  et  a  paterna  gloria  non  recedens, 
novo  ordine,  nova  nativitate  generatus  .  .  .  nee  in  domino  Jesu  Christo 
ex  utero  virginis  genito,  quia  nativitas  est  admirabilis,  ideo  nostri  est 
natura  dissimilis.  Qui  enim  verus  est  Deus,  idem  verus  est  homo,  et 
nullum  est  in  hac  imitate  mendacium,  dum  invicem  sunt  et  humilitas 
hominis  et  altitudo  deitatis.  Sicut  enim  Deus  non  mutatur  misera- 
tione,  ita  homo  non  consumitur  dignitate.  Agit  enim  utraque  forma 
cum  alterius  communione  quod  proprium  est;  Verbo  scilicet  ope- 
rante  quod  Verbi  est  et  carne  exsequente  quod  carnis  est.  Unum 
horum  coruscat  miraculis,  aliud  succumbit  iniuriis.  Et  sicut  Verbum 
ab  aequalitate  paternae  gloriae  non  recedit,  ita  caro  naturam  nostri 
generis  non  relinquit.  Unus  enim  idemque  est,  quod  saepe  dicendum 
est,  vere  Dei  filius  et  vere  hominis  filius  (c.  4).  —  In  the  editions 
of  his  works  the   homilies   and    letters   are    followed   by   writings   of 

1  Sermo  82,   1.  2  Migm,  PL.,  liv.  581  — 1218. 

3  Cone.  Chalc.  Act.  ii ;  Mansi,  vi.   972. 


§    97-      P0PE    ST-    LE0    THE    GREAT    AND    OTHER    ITALIAN   WRITERS.      525 

doubtful  provenance;  we  have  already  mentioned  (§  95,  5)  the  De 
vocatione  omnium  gentium  and  the  letter  Ad  Demetriadem.  ThzSacra- 
mentarium  Leonianum  (Liber  sacramentorum  Romana e  ecclesiae)  1  is 
the  oldest  form  of  the  Roman  missal  or  rather  the  earliest  collection 
of  secret  prayers  said  by  the  celebrant  during  the  Mass.  It  is  certainly 
of  Roman  origin,  but  with  equal  certainty  a  private  work  and  not 
the  official  publication  of  any  pope.  Duchesne  is  of  opinion  (1889) 
that  it  was  compiled  about  the  middle  of  the  sixth  century;  Probst 
maintains  (1892)  the  traditional  opinion  according  to  which  this  col- 
lection of  Mass-prayers  dates  from  the  second  half  of  the  fifth  cen- 
tury, and  is  mostly  made  up  of  formulae  that  belong  to  the  time 
of  Leo  the  Great. 

3.  literature  of  LEO  the  great.  —  The  principal  editions  of  his 
writings  are  those  of  P.  Quesnel,  Paris,  1675,  2  vo^s-  (often  reprinted),  and 
of  the  brothers  Pietro  and  Girolamo  Ballerini,  Venice,  1753 — 1757,  3  vols. 
{Migne,  PL.,  liv — lvi).  For  the  contents  of  these  editions  and  all  biblio- 
graphy to  1794,  as  well  as  for  the  manuscripts  then  known,  cf.  Schoene- 
mann,  Bibl.  hist.-lit.  Patr.  lat. ,  ii.  886  —  1012  {Migne,  PL.,  liv.  64—114). 
Since  the  Ballerini  edition  nothing  has  been  added  to  the  writings  of  Leo. 
The  eight  homilies  published  by  A.  B.  Caillau  (Ib.,  lvi.  1131 — 11 54)  are 
certainly  spurious.  So,  too,  is  the  Sermo  de  ascensione  published  as  a 
work  of  Leo  by  Pr.  Liverani ,  Spicilegium  Liberianum,  Florence,  1863, 
pp.  121 — 123.  On  the  other  hand,  in  his  work  S.  Leone  Magno  e  1'Oriente 
(Rome,  1882;  Montecassino,  1890)  Don  Ambrogio  Amelli  selected  from 
a  Latin  collection  of  documents  dating  back  to  the  Eutychian  controversies 
(§  114,  3)  and  published  two  new  letters  to  Leo,  one  from  Flavian,  patri- 
arch of  Constantinople,  and  the  other  from  Eusebius,  bishop  of  Dorylaeum ; 
both  of  them  are  appeals  to  the  pope  against  the  Robber-Synod  of  Ephesus, 
in  which  these  two  bishops  had  been  unjustly  deposed.  For  a  new  edition 
of  the  two  letters  (from  the  codex  of  Amelli)  cf.  Th.  Mommsen,  in  Neues 
Archiv  der  Gesellschaft  für  ältere  deutsche  Geschichtskunde  (1886),  xi. 
361 — 368.  These  two  letters  were  edited  again  by  Lacey ,  Cambridge, 
1903.  Two  other  (Greek  and  Latin)  letters  of  Flavian  to  Leo  are  found 
among  the  letters  of  Leo  (22  26)  in  Migne,  PL.,  liv.  723 — 732  743 — 751. 
There  is  also  a  letter  of  Flavian  to  the  emperor  Theodosius  II.  {Migne,  PG., 
lxv.  889 — 892).  We  still  possess  a  memorial  of  Eusebius  of  Dorylaeum  against 
Eutyches  written  in  448  (Mansi,  SS.  Cone.  Coll.  vi.  65 1  ff.)  and  a  petition 
to  the  emperors  on  the  Robber-synod  (Ib. ,  vi.  583  f.).  For  the  palaeo- 
graphical  (manuscript)  tradition  of  the  letters  of  Leo  cf.  R.  v.  Nostitz- 
Rieneck,  in  Hist.  Jahrb.  (1897),  xviii.  117 — 133.  An  excellent  edition  of 
the  letters  relative  to  the  paschal  computation  is  owing  to  Br.  Krusch, 
Studien  zur  christlich-mittelalterlichen  Chronologie,  Leipzig,  1880,  pp.  251 
to  265.  For  the  genuineness  of  the  letters  of  Leo  and  other  popes  con- 
cerning the  papal  vicariate  of  Thessalonica,  as  found  in  the  so-called  Col- 
lectio  Thessalonicensis,  see  v.  Nostitz-Rieneck,  in  Zeitschr.  für  kath.  Theol. 
(1897),  xxi.  1 — 50.  Some  of  the  homilies  and  letters  of  Leo  are  reprinted 
from  the  Ballerini  edition  in  Hurler,  SS.  Patr.  opusc.  sei.  xiv.  and  xxv  to 
xxvi.  All  his  homilies  are  translated  into  German  by  M.  M.  Wilden, 
Kempten,  1876  (Bibl.  der  Kirchenväter),  and  all  his  letters  by  S.  Wenz- 
lowsky ,   Die  Briefe   der  Päpste  (Bibl.   der  Kirchenväter),   Kempten,  1878, 

1  Migne,  PL.,  lv.   21  — 156. 


^  26  SECOND    PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 

jv — v#  There  is  an  English  translation  of  the  homilies  and  sermons  by 
Ch.  L.  Feltoe,  in  Select  Library  of  Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers, 
series  ii,  vol.  xii,  New  York,  1896.  Feltoe  also  edited  the  Sacramentarium 
Leonianum,  Cambridge,  1897.  —  For  this  Sacramentarium  cf.  L.  Duchesne \ 
Origines  du  culte  chretien,  Paris,  1889;  2.  ed.,  1898;  3.  ed.,  1902.  F.  Probst, 
Die  ältesten  römischen  Sakramentarien  und  Ordines  erklärt,  Münster,  1892. 
H.  A.  Wilson,  The  metrical  endings  of  the  Leonine  Sacramentary ,  in 
Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1904),  v.  386 — 395,  and  (1905),  vi.  381 — 391.  — 
For  the  general  history  of  St.  Leo  see  Ed.  Perthel,  Papst  Leos  I.  Leben 
und  Lehren.  Ein  Beitrag  zur  Kirchen-  und  Dogmengeschichte,  Jena,  1843. 
Fr.  and  P.  Böhringer ,  Die  Väter  des  Papsttums:  Leo  I.  und  Gregor  I., 
Stuttgart,  1879  (D*e  Kirche  Christi  und  ihre  Zeugen.  New  ed.).  C.  Ber- 
tani ,  Vita  di  S.  Leone  Magno,  pontefice  massimo,  Monza,  1880 — 1881, 
3  vols.  Ph.  Kuhn,  Die  Christologie  Leos  I.  d.  Gr.  in  systematischer  Dar- 
stellung, Würzburg,  1894.  H.  Grisar,  Geschichte  Roms  und  der  Päpste 
im  Mittelalter,  I,  Freiburg  i.  Br. ,  1898,  passim.  —  There  are  extant 
[Migne,  PL.,  1.  581  rT.)  eight  letters  of  Sixtus  III.  (432 — 440)  the  prede- 
cessor of  Pope  Leo  I.,  in  German  by  Wenzlowsky  (1.  c,  iii.  535  rT.)  and 
in  English  by  Feltoe  (1.  a). 

4.  ST.  PETER  CHRYSOLOGUS.  —  Peter,  born  about  406  at  Foro- 
cornelium  (Imola),  became  bishop  of  Ravenna,  it  is  generally  believed 
about  433.  In  this  Western  centre  of  imperial  government  he  attained 
a  high  reputation  as  a  truly  great  pastor  of  souls.  It  is  a  contro- 
verted question  whether  Ravenna  was  or  was  not  a  metropolitan  see 
before  his  time.  He  enjoyed  intimate  relations  with  Leo  the  Great. 
When  Eutyches,  the  father  of  the  Monophysite  heresy,  was  con- 
demned by  the  Synod  of  Constantinople  (448),  and  thereupon  sought 
to  deceive  public  opinion,  Peter  was  one  of  those  whom  he  approached, 
but  was  told  by  the  latter  that  he  ought  to  obey  the  instructions 
of  the  pope:  quoniam  beatus  Petrus,  qui  in  propria  sede  et  vivit  et 
praesidet,  praestat  quaerentibus  fidei  veritatem;  nos  enim  pro  studio 
pacis  et  fidei  extra  consensum  Romanae  civitatis  episcopi  causas  fidei 
audire  non  possumus1.  Peter  died  at  Imola,  probably  about  450. 
Besides  the  letter  to  Eutyches,  there  are  one  hundred  and  seventy- 
six  homilies  bearing  his  name2;  they  were  collected  by  Felix,  bishop 
of  Ravenna  (707—717).  It  is  almost  universally  admitted  that  among 
them  are  spurious  homilies;  on  the  other  hand,  besides  this  collec- 
tion, some  homilies  of  Peter  are  current  under  other  names  (e.  g.  the 
seven  homilies  in  Migne)3.  The  homilies  of  our  Saint  are  not  long; 
fully  one  half  of  them  are  expositions  of  biblical  texts.  The  author 
develops  first  the  literal  sense  and  seeks  then  for  some  deeper  mean- 
ing: quia  historica  relatio  ad  altiorem  semper  est  intelligentiam  sub- 
limanda*.  He  wrote  few  doctrinal  discourses  in  the  strict  sense  of 
the  word.  Those  extant  treat  of  the  mystery  of  the  Incarnation  or 
denounce  the  heresies  of  Arius  and  Eutyches.  Homilies  56—62  are 
expository  of  the  Apostles'  Creed.    A  series  of  homilies   is   devoted 

1  Ep.  25  among  the  letters  of  Leo;  Migne,  PL.,  liv.   739—744. 

2  ib.,  Iii.   183—666.  s  pL>  m    665—680. 


§    97«      POPE    ST.    LEO    THE    GREAT    AND    OTHER    ITALIAN   WRITERS.      527 

to  the  honor  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  and  of  John  the  Baptist.  In  all 
of  these  discourses  a  pure  ecclesiastical  spirit  breathes.  The  style  is 
generally  sober  and  concise:  et  dicenti  et  audienti  semper  generat 
lassitudo  fastidium 1 ,  but  occasionally  bold  and  elevated,  as  in  the 
oft-quoted  phrase :  qui  iocari  voluerit  cum  diabolo,  non  poterit  gaudere 
cum  Christo2,  and  often  quite  popular,  for  as  he  remarks:  populis 
populariter  est  loquendum3.  Also  in  the  Middle- Ages  the  homilies  of 
our  Saint,  as  the  large  number  of  manuscripts  proves,  were  much 
in  vogue.  He  is  first  called  Chrysologus  by  Agnellus,  the  ninth- 
century  author  of  the  Liber  pontificalis  ecclesiae  Ravennatis:  pro  suis 
eum  eloquiis  Chrisologum  ecclesia  vocavit,  id  est  aureus  sermocinator  *, 
but  there  is  reason,  however,  to  believe  that  the  epithet  is  contem- 
poraneous with  our  Saint. 

His  works  were  edited  by  D.  Mita,  Bologna,  1643,  and  S.  Pauli, 
Venice,  1775  ;  the  latter  edition  is  reprinted  in  Migne,  PL.,  Hi.  Sermo  149 
(De  pace;  Migne,  PL.,  Hi.  598  f.)  is  rather  the  work  of  Severianus  of 
Gabala  and  is  also  found  among  the  writings  of  the  latter  in  Migne,  PG., 
Hi.  425 — 428;  §  74,  17.  In  his  Spicilegium  Liberianum,  Florence,  1863, 
pp.  125 — 203,  Fr.  Liverani  published,  from  various  manuscripts  in  Italian 
libraries,  variant  readings  of  several  sermons  of  Petrus  Chrysologus;  he 
also  edited  nine  new  sermons.  The  fourth  of  these  new  sermons:  Contra 
lubrica  festa  ac  pompas  (Liverani,  p.  192  f.)  is  erroneously  included  among 
the  writings  of  Severianus  of  Gabala  (Migne,  PL.,  lxv.  27 — 28;  §  74,  17). 
Selected  homilies  of  our  author  were  translated  into  German  by  M  Held, 
Kempten,  1874  (Bibl.  der  Kirchenväter);  cf.  H.  Dapper,  Der  hl.  Petrus 
Chrysologus,  Cologne,  1867.  Fl.  v.  Stablewski,  Der  heilige  Kirchenvater 
Petrus  von  Ravenna  Chrysologus,  Posen,  1871.  J.  Looshorn,  Der  hl.  Petrus 
Chrysologus  und  seine  Schriften,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  kath  Theol.  (1879),  iii. 
238 — 265.  C.  Weyman,  Zu  Petrus  Chrysologus,  in  Philologus  (1896),  lv. 
464—471. 

5.  ST.  MAXIMUS  OF  TURIN.  —  There  is  extant  under  the  name  of 
Maximus,  bishop  of  Turin,  a  still  larger  number  of  homilies.  We 
know  with  certainty  but  little  concerning  his  life.  In  451  his  name 
is  found  among  those  of  the  dignitaries  in  a  synod  of  Milan  5,  and, 
in  November  of  465,  he  assisted  at  a  Roman  synod.  The  acts  of 
this  synod  mention  among  the  names  of  those  present,  and  directly 
after  the  name  of  Pope  Hilarius,  that  of  Maximus  before  all  other 
bishops6,  whence  it  has  been  concluded  that  he  was  the  oldest  of 
the  bishops  present.  His  discourses  were  first  edited  by  Bruni  in 
17847,  and  are  divided  with  more  or  less  accuracy  into:  homiliae, 
sermones,  tractatus.  There  are  one  hundred  and  eighteen  homiliae: 
De  tempore  1 — 63,  De  Sanctis  64 — 82,  De  diversis  83 — 118;  one 
hundred   and   sixteen   sermones:    De  tempore   1 — 55,    De  Sanctis  56 

1  Sermo   122.  2  Sermo   155.  3  Sermo  43. 

4  Ed.  Holder -Egg er,  p.  310. 

5  Migne,  PL.,  liv.,   948;  Mansi,  SS.  Cone.  Coll.,  vi.    143. 

6  Mansi,  1.   c.,  vii.   959  965  f.  7  Migne,  PL.,  lvii. 


528 


SECOND    PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 


to  93,  De  diversis  94 — 116,  and  six  tractatus:  under  this  latter  title 
(tractatus  vi),  however,  we  actually  find  expositiones  de  capitulis  evan- 
geliorum  (1—  23).  An  appendix  contains  other  writings  of  uncertain 
authenticity:  thirty-one  serrnones,  three  homiliae,  and  two  long  epi- 
stolae.  It  has  been  elsewhere  shown  that  many  writings,  considered 
by  Bruni  to  be  genuine  works  of  Maximus,  belong  to  other  writers. 
His  sermons  are  usually  brief,  like  those  of  Chrysologus,  whom  he 
resembles  in  the  energy  and  robustness  of  his  style,  though  sometimes 
his  language  is  over  flowery.  In  these  discourses  he  appears  as  a 
most  zealous  shepherd  of  souls,  and  especially  tireless  in  his  opposi- 
tion to  the  survivals  of  paganism  and  the  inroads  of  heresy.  Northern 
Italy  was  a  kind  of  refuge  for  a  multitude  of  sects,  against  which 
Maximus  defends  the  teachings  of  the  Church  with  great  clearness 
and  firmness. 

For  the  editions  of  the  homilies  of  Maximus  and  the  manuscript  tra- 
dition cf.  Schoenemann,  Bibl.  hist.-lit.  Patr.  lat.,  ii.  618 — 669  [Migne,  PL., 
lvii.  184 — 210).  The  writings  and  the  life  of  Maximus  are  described  at 
length  by  Fessler- Jungmann,  Instit.  Patrol,  ii  2,  256 — 276.  The  Sermo  vii 
in  Bruni' s  appendix  (De  die  dominicae  ascensionis)  is  the  Explanatio  sym- 
boli  ad  initiandos  of  St.  x\mbrose  (§  90,  6  10) ;  cf.  Ferreri,  S.  Massimo, 
vescovo  di  Torino,  e  i  suoi  tempi,  3.  ed.,  Turin,  1868.  The  episcopate 
and  life  of  St.  Maximus  are  described  by  F.  Savio ,  Gli  antichi  vescovi 
d' Italia  (Piemonte),  Turin,  1899,  pp.  283—294.  In  this  work  (pp.  569 
to  575)  the  reader  will  find  an  account  of  the  forgeries  of  Meyranesio,  i.  e. 
compositions  which  he  fathered  on  Maximus. 


THIRD  PERIOD. 

FROM  THE  MIDDLE  OF  THE  FIFTH  CENTURY  TO 
THE  END  OF  THE  PATRISTIC  AGE. 

FIRST  SECTION. 

GREEK  WRITERS. 

§  g8.    General  conspectus. 

I.  THE  DECAY  OF  ECCLESIASTICAL  LEARNING.  —  After  the  middle 
of  the  fifth  century  Greek  theology  enters  upon  a  period  of  decay. 
The  doctrinal  conflicts  that  centre  about  the  names  of  Nestorius  and 
Eutyehes,  tend  more  and  more  to  serve  ecclesiastico-political  aims. 
Interest  in  ecclesiastical  knowledge  perishes,  while  the  earlier  creative 
vigor  is  steadily  on  the  wane.  Men  are  henceforth '  content  with 
collections  of  excerpts,  with  summaries  and  compilations;  it  is  held 
sufficient  to  catalogue  the  intellectual  labors  of  former  days.  Early  in 
this  period  are  to  be  found  the  still  obscure  origins  of  the  «Catenae», 
and  of  the  very  intricate  literature  of  the  «Florilegia»  or  «Parallela». 
Some  works  of  an  earlier  date,  especially  homilies,  were  re-edited 
in 'view  of  actual  needs  and  circumstances;  others  were  fitted  out 
with  commentaries.  Superior  minds,  however,  were  not  entirely  lack- 
ing; a  few  such  rose  above  the  conditions  of  their  own  time  and 
produced  original  writings  that  still  excite  astonishment  and  even 
admiration.  At  least  one  new  field  of  ecclesiastical  literature  was 
cultivated  with  success  in  this  period :  rhythmical  hymnography,  speci- 
mens of  which  we  have  already  met  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries 
(§  60,  5).  The  growing  splendor  of  divine  worship  acts  henceforth 
as  a  powerful  stimulus  in  this  direction,  and  ecclesiastical  literature 
is  accordingly  enriched  with  productions  of  the  highest  merit.  It  may 
be  added  that  at  no  time  during  the  patristic  period  did  ecclesiastical 
literature  sink  to  so  low  a  level,  as  profane  Greek  literature  did 
in  the  seventh  and  eighth  centuries.  While  in  John  of  Damascus 
the  Church  found  a  champion  who  seemed  to  recall,  both  in  prose 
and  verse,  the  golden  age  of  the  fourth  century,  profane  Greek 
literature  enters  upon  a  desolate  period  of  utter  silence.  The  Da- 
mascene,   however,    is    only  a  transient  reflorescence  of  former  intel- 

Bardenhewek-Shahan,  Patrology.  34 


530 


THIRD    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 


lectual  strength;  after  him  Byzantine  theology  enters  upon  a  period 
of  torpor. 

2.  DOCTRINAL  CONTROVERSIES  AND  ECCLESIASTICAL  LITERATURE; 
DOGMATIC,  POLEMIC,  AND  APOLOGETIC.  —  Nestorianism,  but  more 
especially  Eutychianism,  in  all  their  ramifications,  furnish  henceforth 
the  subject-matter  of  Greek  theology.  Both  these  heresies  found 
their  ablest  opponent  in  Leontius  of  Byzantium,  a  theological  heir  of 
Cyril  of  Alexandria.  Other  disputants  in  these  memorable  conflicts 
were  Ephraem  of  Antioch,  the  emperor  Justinian,  Anastasius  I.  of 
Antioch,  Eulogius  of  Alexandria,  Georgius  Pisides,  Anastasius  Sinaita, 
and  John  of  Damascus.  Apollinarianism  was  again  refuted  this  time 
by  Antipater  of  Bostra  and  Leontius  of  Byzantium  (?).  Origenism 
called  forth  the  same  Antipater  and  the  emperor  Justinian,  as  well 
as  Barsanuphius  and  Theodorus  of  Scythopolis.  The  Theopaschite 
and  Tritheist  disputes  did  not  get  beyond  certain  narrow  limits.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  controversy  of  the  Three  Chapters  moved  the 
Church  of  the  West  more  profoundly  than  that  of  the  East.  Eustratius 
of  Constantinople  opposed  the  theory  that  after  death  the  soul  was 
in  a  dormant  state.  The  old  Monophysite  teachings  awoke  to  a  new 
life  in  Monotheletism.  This  new  heresy  was  refuted  by  Sophronius 
of  Jerusalem  and  Maximus  Confessor,  the  latter  of  whom  is  reckoned 
among  the  greatest  theologians  of  the  Greek  church.  The  theology 
of  Maximus  is  based  on  the  writings  of  the  pseudo-Dionysius  Areo- 
pagita  who  had  undertaken  to  make  the  ideas  of  Neoplatonism  sub- 
servient to  the  needs  of  Christian  speculation.  The  last  great  doc- 
trinal question  to  agitate  the  Greek  Church  was  thrust  upon  her 
by  the  iconoclastic  emperor,  Leo  the  Isaurian;  the  defence  of  holy 
images  was  undertaken  by  Germanus  of  Constantinople  and  John  of 
Damascus.  The  latter  remains  to  the  present  day  the  classic  theo- 
logian of  the  Greek  Church,  all  earlier  doctrinal  material  of  which 
is  resumed  and  systematized  by  him  in  his  «Fountain  of  Wisdom». 
Meritorious  defenders  of  Christianity  against  the  attacks  of  Neo- 
platonism arose  in  the  persons  of  Aeneas  of  Gaza  and  Zacharias 
Rhetor.  Leontius  of  Neapolis,  Anastasius  Sinaita,  John  of  Damascus, 
and  others  wrote  against  the  Jews.  The  Damascene  writes  also  against 
the  Manichaeans  (Paulicians)  and  the  Saracens. 

3.  OTHER  BRANCHES  OF  THEOLOGICAL  LITERATURE.  —  Historical 
theology.  While  in  the  West  ecclesiastical  history  assumes  the  cha- 
racter of  a  lifeless  chronicle  as  early  as  the  fifth  century,  the  Greek 
church  by  its  writers  vigorously  sustains  throughout  the  sixth  century 
its  reputation  for  ecclesiastical  historiography.  Theodorus  Lector, 
Zacharias  Rhetor,  and  Evagrius  Scholasticus  will  always  be  remember- 
ed as  ecclesiastical  historians.  The  Chronicon  Paschale  belongs  to 
the  first  half  of  the  seventh  century.  Less  valuable  is  the  history 
of  the  Nicene  Council  by  Gelasius  of  Cyzicus;  Basil  of  Seleucia  has 


§    99-     WRITERS    OF    THE    SECOND    HALF    OF   THE    FIFTH    CENTURY.      53 1 

left  us  specimens  of  biography ;  he  was  followed  by  Cyril  of  Scytho- 
polis  and  Leontius  of  Neapolis;  the  former  wrote  for  the  monks, 
the  latter  for  the  people,  while  both  aimed  at  edification  and  prac- 
tical results.  Cosmas  Indicopleustes  is  remembered  as  a  geographer. 
The  province  of  biblical  theology  was  much  less  cultivated.  Biblical 
commentaries  were  composed  by  Ammonius  of  Alexandria,  Gennadius 
of  Constantinople,  Victor  of  Antioch,  and  Andrew  of  Caesarea.  We 
owe  to  Procopius  of  Gaza  lengthy  Catena-like  compilations  on  several 
books  of  the  Old  Testament.  In  the  fifth  book  of  his  «Christian 
Topography»,  Cosmas,  the  Indian  traveller,  wrote  a  kind  of  intro- 
duction to  the  Bible;  his  commentary  on  the  Canticle  of  canticles 
has  perished.  Practical  theology  is  much  more  copiously  represented. 
We  find  that  many  ascetical  works  were  produced  by  John  Climacus, 
John  Moschus,  the  monk  Antiochus,  the  abbot  Dorotheus,  Maximus 
Confessor,  John  of  Damascus,  and  others.  A  widely  read  and  au- 
thoritative work  was  the  «Ladder»  (of  heaven)  written  by  John  Cli- 
macus. The  «Spiritual  meadow»  of  John  Moschus,  a  collection  of 
miraculous  events  and  of  virtuous  lives  of  contemporary  monks,  was 
particularly  beloved  among  works  of  edification.  Collections  of  ho- 
milies are  extant  under  the  names  of  Basil  of  Seleucia,  Sophronius 
of  Jerusalem,  Germanus  of  Constantinople,  John  of  Damascus ;  the 
latter  three  deserve  especial  mention  for  their  homilies  on  the  Blessed 
Virgin.  In  the  sixth  century  systematic  collections  of  canons  were 
made  by  an  anonymous  writer  and  by  Johannes  Scholasticus ;  in  the 
seventh  and  eighth  the  Nomocanones  or  collections  of  civil  and 
ecclesiastical  laws  were  compiled.  Sacred  poetry ,  as  already  stated 
(see  no.  i),  made  wonderful  progress.  Splendid,  and  in  a  way  in- 
comparable, rhythmic  hymns  were  composed  by  Romanus  the  Singer, 
Sergius  of  Constantinople,  Andrew  of  Crete,  John  of  Damascus,  and 
Cosmas  the  Singer.  Georgius  Pisides,  a  gifted  and  productive  poet, 
adhered  strictly  to  quantitative  metre. 

§  gg.    Writers  of  the  second  half  of  the  fifth  century. 

I.  BASIL  OF  SELEUCIA.  —  This  writer  was  bishop  of  Seleucia  in 
Isauria.  At  the  Synod  of  Constantinople  (448)  held  under  the  pre- 
sidency of  the  patriarch  Flavian,  he  voted  for  the  condemnation  of 
the  new  heresy  of  Eutychianism  or  Monophysitism  and  for  the  de- 
position of  the  archimandrite  Eutyches,  but  at  the  Robber- Synod  of 
Ephesus  (449),  the  violent  Dioscurus  of  Alexandria  so  intimidated 
him  that  he  declared  in  favor  of  the  rehabilitation  of  Eutyches  and 
adhered  to  the  Monophysite  teaching.  He  was  therefore  about  to 
be  deposed  at  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  (451),  but  subscribed  the 
letter  of  Leo  the  Great  to  Flavian  (§97,  2),  condemned  Eutyches 
and  Dioscurus,  and  was  forgiven ;  he  never  afterwards  wavered  from 
orthodox  doctrines.     There  is  extant  in  a  Latin    translation   a  letter 

34* 


532 


THIRD    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 


of  the  Isaurian  episcopate,  written  in  458  to  the  emperor  Leo  I.,  and 
signed  by  Basil,  in  which  he  declares  that  the  authority  of  Chal- 
cedon  must  be  sustained  and  the  intruded  patriarch  of  Alexandria, 
Timothy  Aelurus,  be  deposed1.  It  is  probable  that  he  did  not  long 
survive  this  act,  and  that  he  died  in  459.  His  literary  remains  con- 
sist of  41  discourses  (Xoyot)  on  passages  from  the  Old  and  the  New 
Testament2  and  a  long  life  of  the  so-called  protomartyr  Thecla 
(§  3°»  5)  followed  by  a  description  of  the  miracles  that  took  place 
at  her  sepulchre  in  Seleucia3.  Photius  was  acquainted  with  fifteen  of 
these  discourses,  and  blames  their  lack  of  simplicity  and  naturalness, 
the  result  of  excessive  rhetorical  ornament;  he  also  calls  attention 
to  the  affinity  between  the  exegetical  method  of  Basil  and  that  of 
Chrysostom4.  The  authenticity  of  most  of  the  sermons  has  been 
called  in  question  (§  J  J,  11).  Photius  is  witness5  that  Basil  wrote  also 
a  metrical  account  (fiirpoic,  hrsivac)  of  the  conflicts  and  triumph 
of  St.  Thecla. 

The  attitude  of  Basil  at  the  above-mentioned  councils  is  described  by 
Hefele,  Konziliengeschichte,  2.  ed.,  ii.  331  ff.  375  ff.  430  ff.  On  his  writ- 
ings cf.  Fabricius-Harles,  Bibl.  Gr.,  ix.  90 — 97  {Migne,  PG.,  lxxxv.  9 — 18). 
On  his  Life  and  Miracles  of  St.  Thecla  cf.  Lipsius ,  Die  apokr.  Apostel- 
geschichten (1887),  h  1,  426  432  f.  —  The  emperor  Leo  I.  (457—474) 
requested  (458)  from  every  bishop  of  the  empire  a  memorial  on  the  Council 
of  Chalcedon  and  on  Timothy  Aelurus.  Many  of  the  answers  are  still 
extant  in  a  Latin  translation  made  by  Epiphanius  Scholasticus  (§  115,  3) 
at  the  suggestion  of  Cassiodorius  [Mansi,  1.  c,  vii.  524 — 662;  Hefele,  1.  c, 
ii.  420  566).  Timothy  Aelurus  appears  to  have  left  many  writings,  only  a 
few  fragments  of  them  have  reached  us  in  the  original  Greek;  there  is 
much  more,  however,  in  the  Syriac  translation ;  cf.  Ahrens  und  Krüger,  Die 
sogen.  Kirchengeschichte  des  Zacharias  Rhetor,  Leipzig,  1899,  pp.  28—31 
38—54  3r9— 322.  W.  E.  Crum,  Eusebius  and  Coptic  Church  histories,  in 
Proceedings  of  the  Society  of  Biblical  Archaeology ,  London,  1902,  xxiv. 
1902.  Crum  recognizes  in  two  manuscripts  of  a  Coptic  ecclesiastical 
history  (in  twelve  books)  a  work  of  Timothy  Aelurus,  attributed  to  him  by 
John  of  Majuma  (§  100,  5) ,  and  in  which  he  had  borrowed  much  from 
Eusebius  of  Caesarea.  P.  Godet,  Basile  de  Seleucie:  Diet,  de  Theologie, 
Pans,   1905,  ii,  c.  459  460. 

2.  ANTIPATER  OF  BOSTRA.  —  Antipater  was  bishop  of  Bostra  in 
Arabia,  shortly  after  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  and  ranks  among 
the  principal  ecclesiastics  of  the  Eastern  Church.  Little  is  known 
about  his  life;  of  his  works  also  but  little  has  reached  us:  Frag- 
ments of  a  large  work  against  the  Apology  for  Origen  of  Pamphilus 
and  Eusebius  (§45,  1);  a  brief  fragment  of  a  treatise  against  the 
Apollinarists;  two  homilies  (on  the  nativity  of  St.  John  the  Baptist 
and  on  the  Annunciation);  and  insignificant  fragments  of  two  other 
homilies6. 

1  Mansi,  SS.  Cone.  Coll.,  vii.   559—563. 

2  Migne,  PG.,  lxxxv.   27-474.  3  lb,  lxxxv.  477—618. 

*  Bibl.  Cod.   168.  ^  Ib>  6  M.gne>  pG;  kxxv    I763_I796 


§    99-      WRITERS    OF    THE    SECOND    HALF    OF   THE    FIFTH    CENTURY.      533 

Cf.  Fabricins- Harks,  Bibl.  Gr.,  x.  518—519  [Migne,  PG. ,  Ixxxv.  1755 
to  1758).  The  Greek  text  of  the  homily  on  St.  John  the  Baptist  and  the 
homily  on  the  Annunciation  was  first  edited  by  A.  Ballerini,  Sylloge  mo- 
numentorum  ad  mysterium  conceptionis  immaculatae  Virginis  Deiparae 
illustrandnm,  Rome,  1856,  ii  2,  5  —  26  445 — 469.  £.  Vailhe,  Antipater  de 
Bostra:  Diet,  de  Theologie,  Paris,   1903,  i,  c.  1440. 

3.  AMMONIUS  OF  ALEXANDRIA.  —  Ammonius,  a  priest  and  ad- 
ministrator (oeconomus)  of  the  temporalities  of  the  Alexandrine  Church, 
was  the  signer  of  a  letter  addressed  in  458  to  the  emperor  Leo  I. 
by  the  bishops  of  Egypt  *,  He  is  very  well-known  as  an  exegete, 
though  only  fragments  of  his  commentaries  have  reached  us  through 
the  «Catenae» ;  they  are  taken  from  his  writings  on  the  Psalms, 
Daniel,  Matthew,  John,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  First  of 
Peter2.  His  identity  with  the  Scholiast  Ammonius,  so  often  quoted 
in  the  «Catenae»,  is  usually  taken  for  granted,  though  the  matter 
demands  further  investigation  and  proof.  Anastasius  Sinaita  quotes 
twice3  from  the  works  of  «the  Alexandrine  Ammonius»  against  the 
Monophysite  Julian  of  Halicarnassus.  This  latter  Ammonius  cannot  be 
identical  with  our  writer,    since  Julian    belongs  to  the  sixth  century. 

Julian  was  bishop  of  Halicarnassus  in  Caria,  from  which  about  518  he 
fled  to  Alexandria.  In  that  city  he  opposed  the  Monophysite  Severus  of 
Antioch  (§  102,  2),  and  maintained  that  even  before  the  Resurrection  the 
body  of  Christ  was  incorruptible,  or  to  speak  more  particularly  that  it  was 
not  subject  to  decay  (cpOopa)  at  all.  His  disciples  were  named  by  'their 
opponents  Aphthartodocetae,  as  teachers  of  the  incorruptibility  of  the  body 
of  Christ,  and  Phantasiastae,  or  teachers  of  a  merely  phenomenal  body  of 
Christ.  A  Latin  translation  of  a  Commentary  of  Julian  on  Job  was  edited 
by  G.  Genebrardus  in  his  edition  of  Origen  (Paris,  1574),  and  has  often 
since  been  reprinted;  the  Greek  text  also  is  extant  in  manuscripts.  As  to 
the  sources  of  this  commentary  cf.  H.  Usener,  in  H.  Lietzmann,  Katenen, 
Freiburg  i.  Br.,  1897,  pp.  28 — 34.  In  the  Rhein.  Mus.  f.  Phil.,  new  series 
(1900),  lv.  321 — 340,  Üsener  published  extracts  from  the  Greek  text.  Other 
fragments  are  found  in  Mai,  Spicilegium  Romanum  (1844),  x.  206—211. 
For  the  doctrine  of  Julian  see  fir.  Loofs,  Leontius  von  Byzanz,  Leipzig, 
1887,  i.  30 — 32. 

4.  GENNADIUS  OF  CONSTANTINOPLE.  —  Gennadius  L,  patriarch  of 
Constantinople  (458 — 471),  was,  as  far  as  is  known,  no  less  sincere  an 
adherent  to  the  orthodox  doctrine  and  no  less  earnest  an  opponent 
of  Monophysitism,  than  his  predecessor  Anatolius  (449—458).  In  a 
great  synod  held  at  Constantinople  (probably  in  459)  he  published 
an  Epistola  encyclica  against  the  practice  of  simony  in  the  conferring 
of  holy  orders4.  According  to  Gennadius  of  Marseilles5  he  was  a 
vir  lingua  nitidus  et  ingenio  acer,  also  the  author  of  a  commentary 
on  Daniel  and  of  many  homilies.    Marcellinus  Comes  asserts  6  that  he 

1  Mansi,  1.  c,  vii.   530.  2  Migne,  PG.,  Ixxxv.   1361  — 1610   1823—1826. 

3  Viae  dux,  cc.   13    14. 

4  Migne,  PG.,  Ixxxv.    1613— 1622;  Mansi,  1.   c,  vii.   911—920 

5  De  viris  ill.,  c.   90.  6  Chron.  ad  a.  470. 


534 


THIRD    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 


wrote  an  exposition  of  all  the  Pauline  Epistles.  All  these  writings 
have  apparently  perished.  A  certain  Gennadius  appears  occasionally 
in  several  Catenae  and  is  often,  though  with  doubtful  accuracy, 
identified  with  our  author.  He  is  quoted  with  special  frequency 
apropos  of  Genesis  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans1. 

The  fragments  of  Gennadius  in  Migne  are  all  taken  from  Catenae ;  the 
fragments  on  Genesis  from  the  Catena  of  Nicephorus  on  the  Octateuch  and 
Kings  (Leipzig,  1772  — 1773),  and  the  fragments  on  Romans  from  J.  A. 
Cramer,  Catenae  Graec.  Patr.  in  Nov.  Test.,  Oxford,  1838 — 1844,  iv.  163  ft". 
For  the  Epistola  encyclica  cf.  Hefele,  Konziliengeschichte,  2.  ed.,  ii.  584  f.  — 
In  union  with  Peter  Mongus,  Monophysite  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  Acacius 
(471 — 489),  the  successor  of  the  patriarch  Gennadius,  induced  the  emperor 
Zeno  to  issue  his  infamous  Henoticon  (482).  This  step,  originally  calcu- 
lated to  bridge  over  the  chasm  between  orthodoxy  and  Monophysitism, 
led  to  a  conflict  between  the  Churches  of  Rome  and  Constantinople  that 
lasted  for  thirty-five  years,  484 — 519  (the  so-called  Acacian  Schism).  A 
correspondence  between  Acacius  and  Peter  Mongus  preserved  in  Coptic 
was  published  in  a  French  translation  by  E.  Revilloui,  in  Revue  des  ques- 
tions historiques,  Paris,  1877,  xxii.  83 — 134,  and,  in  Coptic  and  French, 
by  E.  Amtlineau,  in  Monuments  pour  servir  ä  l'histoire  de  l'Egypte  chre- 
tienne  aux  IVe  et  Ve  siecles,  Paris,  1888,  pp.  196—228.  Amelineau  is 
right,  as  against  Revillout,  in  maintaining  the  spurious  character  of  this 
correspondence  (see  §  78,  12).  On  the  other  hand,  a  genuine  and  com- 
plete text  of  these  letters  exists  in  an  Armenian  translation ;  cf.  Book  of 
Letters,  an  Armenian  work  by  %  Ismireanz,  Tiflis,   1901,  nn.  61 — 78. 

5.  GELASIUS  OF  CYZICUS.  —  This  writer  composed  about  475  in 
Bithynia  a  history  (in  three  books)  of  the  first  ecumenical  Council 
at  Nicaea2.  It  seems  strange  that  up  to  the  present  there  should 
have  been  published  only  one  fragment  of  the  third  book  containing 
three  letters  or  edicts  of  Constantine  the  Great.  We  know  but  little 
about  Gelasius.  Photius3  found  that  in  several  manuscripts  he  was 
called  bishop  of  Caesarea  in  Palestine.  His  work  is  a  mere  compila- 
tion from  such  earlier  Christian  historiographers  as  Eusebius,  Socrates, 
Sozomen  and  Theodoret.  Where  his  narrative  is  not  sustained  by 
these  older  writers,  it  is  of  doubtful  value,  and  at  times  positively 
erroneous. 

This  history  of  the  Nicene  Council  is  found  in  the  larger  collections 
of  the  councils,  e.  g.  in  Mansi.  The  index  of  the  (manuscript)  third  book 
was  made  known  by  Er.  (Dehler,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  wissensch.  Theol.  (1861). 
iv.  439—442.  For  a  general  description  of  the  work  cf.  E.  Venables,  in 
Smith  and  Wace,  A  Dictionary  of  Christian  Biography,  ii.  621—623. 

6.  VICTOR  OF  ANTIOCH.  —  It  was  probably  in  the  fifth  century 
that  Victor,  an  otherwise  unknown  priest  of  Antioch,  compiled  a 
commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  Mark  from  older  materials  of  a  similar 
kind   illustrative   of  the  Gospels   of  Matthew,    Luke   and  John.     He 

1  Migne,  PC,  lxxxv.    162 1  — 1734. 

8  Ib.,  lxxxv.   1 1 91  — 1360.  8  Bibl<  Cod<  88< 


§    IOO.      PSEUDODIONYSIUS   AREOPAGITA.  535 

seems  to  have  made  good  use  of  the  homilies  of  St.  John  Chryso- 
stom,  and  his  work  proved  very  serviceable  to  later  interpreters. 
His  commentary  on  Jeremias  seems  to  have  been  similarly  constructed; 
the  Catena  on  Jeremias,  edited  by  M.  Ghisler  (Lyons,  1623),  draws 
largely  upon  this  work  of  Victor.  Judging  from  the  character  of 
his  authorities,  Victor  evidently  belongs  to  the  Antiochene  school 
of  exegesis. 

The  commentary  of  Victor  on  Mark  was  first  edited,  in  the  original 
Greek,  by  P.  Possim/s,  Rome,  1673,  later  on  by  Chr.  Fr.  Matthaei,  Moscow, 
1775,  and  by  J.  A.  Cramer,  Oxford,  1844  (Catenae  Graec.  Patr.  in  Nov. 
Test.,  i.  259 — 447).  The  edition  of  Cramer  presents  the  most  complete 
and  relatively  the  most  ancient  text,  the  edition  of  Matthaei  a  later  re- 
cension. For  the  scholia  on  Jeremias  cf.  M.  Fanlhaber,  Die  Propheten- 
Katenen,  Freiburg  i.  Br.,  1899,  Biblische  Studien,  iv.  2 — 3  107  —  no  133. 
—  L.  A.  Zaccagni  was  the  first  to  publish  (Rome,  1698),  under  the  name 
of  Euthalius,  recensions  of  the  text  of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles,  and  the  Catholic  Epistles  (Migne,  PG.,  lxxxv.  619—790;  that 
of  the  Acts  is  also  Ib.,  x.  1549 — 1558).  This  Euthalius  is  said  to  have 
been  an  inhabitant  of  Egypt,  to  have  lived  in  the  latter  half  of  the  fifth 
century,  and  to  have  been  a  deacon,  and  subsequently  a  bishop.  J.  A. 
Robinson  has  shown,  in  Texts  and  Studies,  Cambridge,  1895,  m-  3>  mat  this 
work  is  the  result  of  gradual  formation  and  is  owing  to  several  hands.  The 
work  was  originally  executed  in  the  fourth  century,  when  its  biblical  texts 
were  subdivided  into  verses  (fftfyoi)  according  to  the  sense;  in  the  fifth 
century  were  added,  apparently,  the  stichometric  division,  the  collation  with 
the  Pamphilus-codices  (§45,  1},  and  other  adminicula;  cf.  E.  v.  Dobschiltz, 
in  Zeitschr.  f.  Kirchengesch.  (1899),  xix.  107—154.  J.  Armitage  Robinson, 
Recent  Work  on  Euthalius,  in  Journal  of  Theological  Studies  (1904),  pp.  70 
to  87  87 — 90. 

§  100.    Pseudo-Dionysius  Areopagita. 

I.    THE  WRITINGS   OF  THE   PSEUDO-AREOPAGITE.  —  According  to 

the  unanimous  evidence  of  the  manuscripts,  Dionysius  Areopagita  is 
the  name  of  the  author  of  a  number  of  theological  works  that, 
generally  speaking,  appear  to  be  the  compositions  of  a  single  writer; 
this  is  evident  from  the  identity  and  continuity  of  certain  fundamental 
theological  and  philosophical  ideas,  and  from  quite  inimitable  peculia- 
rities of  tone  and  style.  The  works  are  fourteen  in  number:  four 
large  treatises  and  ten  letters,  of  which  most  are  very  short.  The 
first  four  of  these  letters  are  addressed  to  the  «Therapeuta»  Caius, 
the  fifth  to  the  «Liturgus»  Dorotheus,  the  sixth  to  the  priest  flspsucj 
Sosipater,  the  seventh  to  the  «Hierarch»  Poly  carp,  the  eighth  to  the 
«Therapeuta»  Demophilus,  the  ninth  to  the  «Hierarch»  Titus,  and 
the  tenth  to  the  «Theologian»  Johannes.  The  contents  of  nearly  all 
the  letters  is  theological;  they  are  answers  to  questions  concerning 
Catholic  doctrine;  some  contain  practical  directions  and  exhortations 
concerning  the  conduct  to  be  observed  towards  infidels  (Ep.  vii),  on 
mildness  and  humility  (Ep.  viii),  and  on  other  points.  The  four  large 
treatises  are  all  dedicated  to  his  co-presbyter  ((jupLTrpsaßuTepog)  Timo- 


536  THIRD    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

theus.  The  work  on  «The  Divine  Names»  (nep\  ftsuov  duppdrcov), 
the  basis  of  the  so-called  Areopagitica,  treats  of  the  names  of  God 
that  occur  in  the  Scriptures,  and  illustrates  through  them  the  nature 
and  attributes  of  the  divinity.  The  work  on  Mystical  Theology  f-£pc 
fiuoTtxrJQ  fteoAopag)  demonstrates  that  it  is  impossible  to  comprehend 
the  divine  nature  and  likewise  impossible  fully  to  express  or  to 
define  it.  The  work  on  «The  Celestial  Hierarchy»  (mp\  tvjq  odpaviag 
lepapyiag)  describes  the  gradation  of  the  heavenly  spirits;  it  distin- 
guishes three  hierarchies  or  classes:  Seraphim,  Cherubim,  and  Thrones; 
Dominations,  Virtues  and  Powers;  Principalities,  Archangels  and  Angels. 
The  work  on  «The  Ecclesiastical  Hierarchy»  (jrept  zyjq  ixxA-Qmaortxijs 
lepapytag)  describes  the  Church  as  an  earthly  image  of  the  heavenly 
world ;  to  the  above-mentioned  three  heavenly  hierarchies  correspond 
as  many  triads  on  earth:  Consecrations  (Baptism,  Eucharist  and  Con- 
firmation); Consecrators  (Bishop,  Priest  and  Deacon);  Consecrated 
(Monks,  Laity,  and  those  in  a  state  of  purification).  The  writer  re- 
peatedly refers  to  other  wrritings  already  published  by  him ;  among 
them  he  quotes  one  on  the  elements  of  theology  (ÜzoAojixdi  ützo- 
TUTraxTstg)1,  another  on  the  attributes  and  ranks  of  the  angels  (nept  zmv 
dyyeAixaJv  IdtorYjTtov  xat  TagsajvJ2,  one  on  the  soul  fnep}  (fiu/rjg)8,  one 
on  the  just  and  divine  judgment  firspt  dtxaioo  xat  ftetoo  dtxatcorqpiouj  4, 
and  others.  It  must  be  said,  however,  that  these  statements  of  the 
author  concerning  his  own  writings  are  both  obscure  and  contra- 
dictory, and  that  no  other  traces  of  his  literary  productions  have  yet 
been  discovered.  The  Syriac  translation  of  the  Areopagitica  made 
by  Sergius  of  Resaina  (f  536  contains  only  the  four  treatises  and 
the  letters,  as  handed  down  in  the  Greek  text.  There  are  extant 
three  letters  to  Apollophanes,  Timotheus,  and  Titus,  that  have  come 
down  in  other  than  Greek  texts,  but  they  are  spurious,  i.  e.  are 
falsely  accredited  to  the  author  of  the  Areopagitica. 

Very  little  has  been  done  hitherto  for  the  textual  criticism  of  this 
writer.  Only  a  few  of  the  (numerous)  Greek  manuscripts  have  been  con- 
sulted, while  the  Oriental  translations  (Syriac,  Armenian,  Arabic)  await 
both  the  printer  and  the  investigator.  The  Greek  text  was  published 
Florence  15 16,  Paris  1562,  Antwerp  1634,  Paris  1644  by  B.  Corderius,  S.  J., 
?..v°ls^  Venice,  1755 — 1756,  2  vols.;  this  last  edition  in  Migne ,  PG., 
111— lv.  J.  G.  V.  Engelhardt  translated  all  the  works  of  Dionysius  into 
German,  Sulzbach,  1823,  2  vols.  The  English  translation  of  J.  Parker 
(Oxford,  1897)  is  a  more  accurate  and  trustworthy  piece  of  work.  The  De 
ecclesiastica  hierarchia  was  translated  into  German  by  R.  Storf,  Kempten, 
1877  (Bibl.  der  Kirchenväter).  Cf.  A.  Jahn,  Dionysiaca.  Sprachliche  und 
sachliche  platonische  Blütenlese  aus  Dionysius,  dem  sogen.  Areopagiten, 
Altona  and  Leipzig,  1889.  —  For  the  statements  of  the  Pseudo-Areopagite 
concerning  his  own  literary  labors  cf.  H.  Koch,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr. 
(1895),  Ixxvn.  362—371;  also  Rom.  Quartalschr.  (1898),  xii.  364—367.— 

1  De  div.  nom.   1,   I   5  al.  2  jb      .    2  3  jb 

4  Ib..  4,  35- 


§    TOO.      PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS   AREOPAGITA.  537 

The  spurious  letter  to  the  philosopher  Apollophanes  (cf.  Ep.  7,  2  —  3)  is 
found  in  Latin  in  Migne,  PG.,  iii.  11 19 — 1122.  The  letter  to  Timotheus 
on  the  death  of  the  Apostles  Peter  and  Paul  is  extant  in  Syriac,  Armenian 
and  Latin  translations  in  Pitra,  Analecta  sacra,  iv.  241 — 254  261 — 276; 
cf.  Vetter ,  Das  apokryphe  Schreiben  Dionysius  des  Areopagiten  an  Titus 
über  die  Aufnahme  Maria,  aus  dem  Armenischen  übersetzt,  in  Theol. 
Quartalschr.  (1887),  lxix.   133 — 138. 

2.  AUTHORSHIP  OF  THE  AREOPAGITICA.  —  The  writer  calls  him- 
self Dionysius  *,  and  apparently  desires  to  pass  for  Dionysius  the 
Areopagite,  disciple  of  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles2  and  first  bishop 
of  Athens3.  He  takes  pleasure  in  declaring  that  St.  Paul  is  his 
master  in  the  mysteries  of  Christianity4,  and  addresses  his  treatises 
and  letters  to  disciples  of  the  apostles:  Timotheus,  Titus,  Caius5, 
Sosipater6,  and  Polycarp.  The  tenth  letter  is  addressed:  «To  the 
Theologian  Johannes,  the  Apostle  and  Evangelist,  in  his  exile  on 
the  island  of  Patmos.»  Dionysius  was  an  eye-witness  of  «the  eclipse 
of  the  sun  in  the  redeeming  Cross»  (ttjq  zv  tw  acozrjpiw  azaupw 
■fe-fovulaQ  IxAeiipecüQ)1  i.  e.  the  solar  eclipse  that  took  place  at  the 
death  of  Christ.  He  says,  he  beheld  it  at  Heliopolis,  but  does  not 
make  clear  whether  he  means  the  town  of  that  name  in  Coelesyria 
or  the  one  in  Lower  Egypt.  Accompanied  by  many  brethren  he 
undertook  a  journey  «to  behold  the  life-begetting  and  God-receiving 
body  (kici  tyjv  biav  too  Ccoapytxou  xat  fteodoyoo  acuparogj » ;  he  means, 
apparently,  that  he  assisted  at  the  death  of  the  Mother  of  God ; 
«there  were  also  present  James  the  brother  of  God  (b  dos/^odsogj  and 
Peter,  the  most  eminent  and  the  oldest  Chiefs  of  the  theologians»  8. 
These  and  other  passages  from  our  author's  treatises  and  letters 
led  ecclesiastical  writers  of  the  sixth  century  to  bestow  on  him  the 
title  of  «Areopagite»,  «disciple  of  the  apostles»,  and  the  like.  The 
first  public  mention  of  his  works  was  made  at  the  religious  con- 
ference that  took  place  in  531  or  533  at  Constantinople  between 
the  orthodox  Catholics  and  the  Severiani  or  moderate  Monophysites. 
The  latter  appealed  for  their  doctrine  to  the  writings  of  Dionysius 
the  Areopagite;  the  Catholic  representative,  Hypatius  of  Ephesus, 
rejected  them  as  spurious:  Ilia  enim  testimonia,  quae  vos  Dionysii 
Areopagitae  dicitis,  unde  potestis  ostendere  vera  esse?9  In  spite  of 
this  attitude,  the  works  of  our  author  gradually  obtained  esteem  and 
influence  even  among  Catholics,  owing  particularly  to  Maximus  Con- 
fessor (f  662)  who  wrote  commentaries  on  them  and  defended  them 
from  the  charges  of  Monophysitism.  Throughout  the  mediaeval 
period  no  one  doubted  that  the  author  was  Dionysius  the  Areo- 
pagite.    In    827    the   Greek    emperor   Michael   Balbus    presented    to 

1  Ep.   7,   3.              2  Acts  xvii.   34.  s  Eus.,  Hist,  eccl.,  iii.  4,    10. 

4  De  div.  nom.  2,    11;   3,  2  al.  5  Rom.  xvi.  23;    1   Cor.  i.    14. 

6  Rom.  xvi.  21.              7  Ep.   7,   2.  8  De  div.  nom.  3,   2. 
9  Mansi,  SS.  Cone.  Coll.,  viii.  821. 


538  THIRD   PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

Louis  the  Pious  a  copy  of  these  works.  A  Latin  translation  executed  by 
Hilduin,  abbot  of  St.  Denis  (near  Paris),  being  found  unsatisfactory, 
Charles  the  Bald  commissioned  the  Irish  monk  John  Scotus  Erigena 
to  make  another.  Thenceforth  the  writings  exercised  a  far-reaching 
influence  on  Western  theological  science.  They  were  as  a  lamp  to 
mystic  theologians  along  the  obscure  paths  of  contemplation  and 
ecstasy ;  scholastic  writers  looked  to  them  for  guidance  in  their 
speculations  concerning  the  nature  and  attributes  of  the  divinity,  the 
first  ideal  causes  of  creation,  and  the  ranks  of  the  heavenly  spirits; 
ascetic  writers  were  instructed  by  them  concerning  the  triple  way  of 
purification,  illumination  and  union;  exegetical  and  liturgical  writers 
found  in  them  the  ideal  presentation  of  scriptural  doctrine  and  ec- 
clesiastical ritual.  With  the  decay  of  mediaeval  life  came  also  a  de- 
cline in  the  reputation  of  the  Areopagitica.  One  of  the  first  mani- 
festations of  the  newly  awakened  spirit  of  criticism  was  a  renewal  of 
the  protest  long  before  made  by  Hypatius  at  Constantinople.  Heated 
and  wearisome  controversies  followed  in  the  course  of  which  were 
brought  forth  countless  hypotheses  concerning  the  true  authorship 
of  these  problematic  writings:  Greek,  Syrian,  Latin,  orthodox  and 
heretical  writers,  even  pagan  priests  of  Dionysos  (i.  e.  Bacchus)  were 
each  in  turn  proposed  as  the  author  of  them;  it  was  always  taken 
for  granted  that,  if  the  author  were  not  Dionysius  the  Areopagite, 
he  was  a  forger  and  a  deceiver.  The  first  to  modify  this  alternative 
was  Hipler;  he  undertook  (1861)  to  prove  that  our  author  himself 
did  not  claim  to  be  the  Areopagite;  Hipler  said  it  was  an  error 
to  seek  in  Dionysius  the  person  of  the  Areopagite,  it  was  owing 
to  this  mistaken  notion  that  in  course  of  time  the  originally  ob- 
scure text  continually  became  more  disfigured  and  corrupted  while 
in  its  turn  this  faulty  text  served  as  a  prop  for  other  erroneous 
hypotheses,  there  was  no  reason  to  suspect  what  the  author  says 
about  himself,  he  was  a  teacher  in  an  Egyptian  catechetical  school, 
during  the  latter  half  of  the  fourth  century  *  and  may  probably  be 
identified  with  the  monk  and  catechist,  Dionysius  at  Rhinocorura, 
mentioned  by  Sozomen2.  Many  theological  scholars,  like  Dräseke 
and  Nirschl,  were  persuaded  that  the  keen  reasoning  of  Hipler  had 
solved  the  problem,  and  agreed  with  the  latter  that  the  qualification 
of  «Pseudo- Areopagite»  was  an  injustice.  Other  writers  continued 
to  maintain  that  the  Areopagitica  were  nothing  more  than  a  com- 
position written  under  an  assumed  name,  and  in  reality  dating  from 
about  the  end  of  the  fifth  century.  In  the  last  few  years  the  brilliant 
investigations  of  Stiglmayr  and  Koch  have  raised  this  thesis  to  the 
level  of  certitude,  and  put  an  end  for  ever  to  a  long-lingering 
controversy. 

1  Cf-  Ep.  7,  2;  De  div.  nom.  3,  2. 
*  Hist,  eccl,  vi.  31. 


§    IOO.     PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS    AREOPAGITA.  539 

There  exists  as  yet  no  complete  history  of  the  Areopagitica,  their  dif- 
fusion and  their  influence.  Cf.  jf.  Stiglmayr,  Das  Aufkommen  der  Pseudo- 
Dionysischen  Schriften  und  ihr  Eindringen  in  die  christliche  Literatur  bis 
zum  Laterankonzil  649  (Progr.),  Feldkirch,  1895.  N-  Nilles ,  in  Zeitschr. 
für  kath.  Theol.  (1896),  xx.  395 — 399.  Stiglmayr,  in  Hist.  Jahrbuch  (1898), 
xix.  91—94;  (1899),  xx.  367—388.  R.  Foss,  Über  den  Abt  Hilduin  von 
St.  Denis  und  Dionysius  Areopagita  (Progr.),  Berlin,  1886.  J.  Dräseke, 
in  Zeitschr.  für  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1892),  xxxv.  408 — 418.  H.  Omont, 
Manuscrit  des  ceuvres  de  S.  Denys  1' Areopagite,  envoye  de  Constantinople 
ä  Louis  le  Debonnaire  en  827,  Paris,  n  pp.,  with  a  fac-simile.  The  earlier 
literature  is  very  extensive  and  may  be  studied  in  Chevalier,  Bio-Biblio- 
graphie, pp.  563 — 565  2549.  The  most  recent  works  are  quoted  below 
no.  3.  The  authorship  of  the  Areopagite  is  still  maintained  by  Josephus 
a  Leonissa  in  various  articles,  in  Jahrbuch  für  Philosophie  und  spekulative 
Theologie  (1902),  xvi;  (1903),  xvii.  419 — 454. 

3.  ACTUAL  STATUS  OF  THE  QUESTION.  —  The  hypothesis  of 
Hipler  is  now  looked  on  as  a  failure.  He  sustained  it  only  by  means 
of  many  modifications  of  the  text  which,  as  more  recent  palaeo- 
graphical  investigations  have  shown,  do  violence  to  the  authentic 
tradition  of  our  author's  text.  There  is  no  reason  for  changing  the 
words  of  the  passages  (no.  2)  already  quoted.  Hipler  was  wrong  in 
attempting  to  make  us  read  ixAd/Kpscog,  instead  of  ixteifiscog1  which 
is  found  in  all  the  printed  editions;  similarly  we  must  read  with  all 
former  editors  awfJtazoQ  and  adsAvodsoQ,  not  ay/iaroQ  and  a.dek(puQ2. 
It  follows  at  once  that  the  author  set  up  for  a  contemporary  of  the 
apostles,  that  he  put  on  a  mask  for  the  purpose  of  deceit.  The  opinion 
that  he  was  really  the  Areopagite,  or  any  other  disciple  of  the 
apostles,  was  rightly  put  aside  many  years  ago  by  Hipler,  and  has 
been  even  more  thoroughly  refuted  since  his  time;  a  result  owing 
in  no  small  degree  to  the  scientific  naivete  of  its  recent  defenders 
(C.  M.  Schneider,  J.  Parker,  and  others).  Internal  and  external  criteria 
enable  us  to  fix  the  date  of  composition  of  the  Areopagitica  between 
the  end  of  the  fifth  and  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  century;  the 
earliest  traces  of  these  are  not  found,  as  Hipler  imagined,  at  the 
end  of  the  fourth  century,  but  at  the  beginning  of  the  sixth,  as 
quotations  in  the  writings  of  Severus,  the  Monophysite  patriarch  of 
Antioch  about  512 — 518  (although  his  writings  cannot  be  dated  with 
absolute  exactness),  or  in  the  quotations  made  from  the  Areopagitica 
by  Andrew,  archbishop  of  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia,  in  his  commentary 
on  the  Apocalypse,  composed  probably  about  520.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  Areopagitica  cannot  have  been  published  before  the  end 
of  the  fifth  century.  The  author  is  quite  familiar  with  the  works 
of  the  Neoplatonist  Proclus  (411 — 485),  and  has  greatly  profited  by 
them.  Both  Stiglmayr  .  and  Koch  have  shown  that  De  div.  nom. 
iv,  18—34,  is  an  extract  from  Proclus'  treatise  De  malorum  sub- 
sistentia,    which    has   reached    us    only   in   a   Latin   translation.    The 


Ep.   7,  2.  2  De  div.  nom.  3,   2. 


540  THIRD    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

author  is  also  acquainted  with  the  liturgical  custom  of  singing  the 
Credo  during  the  Mass1.  This  was  first  done  by  the  Monophysites 
at  Antioch  in  476;  the  Catholics  soon  afterwards  adopted  its  intro- 
duction into  the  liturgy.  The  author  is  also  very  probably  influenced 
by  the  Henoticon  of  the  emperor  Zeno  (482),  the  document  by  which 
he  hoped  to  bring  about  a  reconciliation  of  the  orthodox  believers 
and  the  Monophysites.  A  pacifying  tone  pervades  the  Areopagitica; 
it  is  evident  that  they  deliberately  avoid  the  disputed  terms  pea  <f>6ffiQ 
and  duo  (foaetq;  in  general  the  Christology  of  their  author  is  expressed 
in  such  vague  and  indefinite  phrases  that  there  is  no  reason  to  wonder 
why  both  parties  laid  claim  to  him  as  to  a  witness  to  the  truth  of 
mutually  conflicting  doctrines.  The  expression  deavoptx/j  ivipyzta2- 
acquired  considerable  celebrity  later  on.  He  was  very  probably  a 
native  of  Syria,  not  of  Egypt.  Krüger  called  attention  to  the  scho- 
lasticus  Dionysius  of  Gaza,  a  friend  of  Petrus  Iberus,  the  Mono- 
physite  bishop  of  Majuma  near  Gaza,  who  died  about  487.  But 
though  our  writer  adopted  the  name  of  Dionysius  in  his  writings, 
there  is  no  proof  that  such  was  really  his  name.  It  is  conjectured 
that  in  his  early  youth  he  must  have  been  a  Neoplatonist;  he  says 
of  himself3  that  he  had  been  born  a  heathen.  In  any  case  the  pe- 
culiar or  distinctive  note  of  his  exposition  of  ecclesiastical  teaching 
and  life  is  found  in  his  manifold  and  profound  Neoplatonic  reminis- 
cences. He  loves  to  dwell  with  endless  variety  on  the  idea  of  the 
One  fiuj,  the  procession  of  all  things  from  Him  (npoodoq),  and  their 
return  to  Him  (iTtiarpoyq).  He  is  not  so  original  an  author  as  has 
long  been  believed.  «He  stands  close  by  the  current  of  ecclesiastical 
tradition  from  which  his  extensive  erudition  permits  him  to  drink  in 
copious  draughts»,  says  Stiglmayr.  In  his  pages,  however,  the  an- 
cient tradition  sparkles  and  scintillates  in  new  and  strange  colors. 
In  his  discourse  he  draws  constantly  on  the  terminology  of  the  pagan 
mysteries;  he  delights  in  capricious  formation  of  new  words;  the 
structure  of  his  sentence  is  affected  and  overcrowded.  As  Stiglmayr 
says,  «he  delights  in  conscious  and  intentional  artificiality  and  obscu- 
rity of  diction». 

Fr.  Hipler,  Dionysius,  der  Areopagite.  Untersuchungen  über  Echtheit 
und  Glaubwürdigkeit  der  unter  diesem  Namen  vorhandenen  Schriften, 
Ratisbon,  1861.  Id.,  De  theologia  librorum  qui  sub  Dionysii  Areopagitae 
nomine  feruntur.  4  programs  of  the  Lycaeum  Hosianum  at  Brunsberg, 
1871— 1885.  The  often  quoted  passage  from  De  div.  nom.  3,  2  is  found  in 
a  Synac  translation  (from  three  codices)  in  F.  de  la^arde,  Mitteilungen, 
Gottingen,  1891,  iv.  19  f.  Cf.  H.  Gelzer ,  in  Jahrb.  für  protest.  Theol. 
u9-2/'  rXVm>  457—459;  for  the  passage  from.  Ep.  7,  2  cf.  Id.,  in  Wochen- 
schrift für  klass.  Philol.  (1892),  pp.  98-100  124—127.  J.  Stiglmayr,  Der 
>leuplatoniker  Proklus  als  Vorlage  des  sogen.  Dionysius  Areopagita  in  der 
Lehre  vom  Übel,  in  Hist.  Jahrb.  (1895),  xvi.  253-273  721-748;  Id.,  Das 

1  De  eccl.  hier,  3.  2.  »  Ep.  4.  3  De  coel    ö<^     ^  $ 


§  IOI.  PROCOPIUS  OF  GAZA  AND  AENEAS  OF  GAZA.        54 1 

Aufkommen  der  Pseudo-Dionysischen  Schriften,  see  no.  2.  H.  Koch,  Der 
pseudepigraphische  Charakter  der  dionysischen  Schriften,  in  Theol.  Quartal- 
schrift (1895),  lxxvii.  353—420,  and  (1896),  lxxviii.  290—298;  Id.,  Proklus 
als  Quelle  des  Pseudo-Dionysius  Areopagita  in  der  Lehre  vom  Bösen,  in 
Philologus  (1895),  liv.  438—454;  Id.,  Pseudo-Dionysius  Areopagita  in  seinen 
Beziehungen  zum  Neuplatonismus  und  Mysterienwesen,  in  Forschungen  zur 
christl.  Literatur-  und  Dogmengeschichte,  Mainz,  1900,  i.  2 — 3.  The  re- 
sults of  Stiglmayr  and  Koch  were  challenged  particularly  by  J.  Dräseke 
and  J.  Nirschl.  Stiglmayr  replied  in  Byzant.  Zeitschr.  (1898),  vii.  91 — no 
(cf.  [1899],  viii.  263—301),  and  Koch,  in  Rom.  Quartalschr.  (1898),  xii. 
353 — 398-  G.  Krüger,  Wer  war  Pseudo-Dionysius?  in  Byzant.  Zeitschr. 
(1899),  viii.  302 — 305.  O.  Siebert,  Die  Metaphysik  und  Ethik  des  Pseudo- 
Dionysius  Areopagita  (Inaug.-Diss.),  Jena,  1894.  Stiglmayr,  Die  Engellehre 
des  sogen.  Dionysius  Areopagita,  in  Compte-rendu  du  IV.  Congres  scient. 
internat.  des  Cathol.,  Freiburg  (Switzerland),  1898,  sect.  I,  pp.  403 — 414; 
Id.,  Die  Lehre  von  den  Sakramenten  und  der  Kirche  nach  Pseudo-Dionysius, 
in  Zeitschr.  f.  kath.  Theol.  (1898),  xxii.  246 — 303;  cf.  pp.  180—187;  Id., 
Die  Eschatologie  des  Pseudo-Dionysius,  ib.  (1899),  xxüi.  1 — 21.  For  pe- 
nance in  Pseudo-Dionysius  see  Koch,  in  Hist.  Jahrb.  (1900),  xxi.  58 — 78; 
cf.  Stiglmayr,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  kath.  Theol.  (1900),  xxiv.  657 — 671. 

4.  HiEROTHEUS.  —  The  author  of  the  Areopagitica  refers  often  with 
enthusiasm  to  a  certain  Hierotheus  as  his  venerable  master;  he  also  men- 
tions (De  div.  nom.  ii.  9 — 10,  and  iv.  14 — 17)  two  works  of  Hierotheus: 
Elements  or  foundations  of  theology:  ikoXo-yixou  crcor/£iu><j£is  (De  div.  nom. 
2,  9 — 10),  and  Hymns  of  love:  ipciraxoi  ujj.voi  (ib.,  4,  14 — 17).  His  own 
works,  he  says,  serve  merely  to  illustrate  and  complete  his  master's  writ- 
ings, which  are  not  easily  understood  by  reason  of  their  profundity  and 
conciseness  (De  div.  nom.  3,  2 — 3 ;  De  coel.  hier.  6 ,  2).  Is  this  Hiero- 
theus an  historical  person  or  a  fiction  of  our  author?  There  is  extant  in 
Syriac  a  «Book  of  St.  Hierotheos  on  the  hidden  mysteries  of  the  divinity», 
which  A.  L.  Frothingham  jun.  (Stephen  Bar  Sudaili,  the  Syrian  mystic, 
and  the  book  of  Hierotheos,  Leyden,  1886)  ascribes  to  the  monk  Stephen 
Bar  Sudaili  who  lived  about  500,  and  which  is  held  by  Frothingham  to  be  the 
source  whence  the  writings  of  the  pseudo-Areopagite  were  drawn.  In  the 
present  state  of  the  question  it  is  more  natural  to  think  that  the  asser- 
tions of  the  Pseudo-Areopagite  suggested  to  some  Syrian  writers  the  com- 
position of  a  «Book  of  St.  Hierotheos». 

5.  vita  Petri  iBERis.  —  About  the  year  500  a  Greek  biography  of 
Petrus  Iber  was  composed.  It  has  been  edited  in  Syriac  and  German  trans- 
lations by  R.  Raabe,  Leipzig,  1895 ;  cf.  J.  B.  Chabot,  in  Revue  de  1' Orient 
latin  (1895),  m-  3^7 — 397-  This  biography  is  supplemented  by  a  work 
entitled  «Plerophoriae»,  anecdotes  gathered  about  515  by  Johannes,  bishop 
of  Majuma,  friend  and  disciple  of  Peter.  These  anecdotes  have  been 
edited  in  French  by  F.  Nau ,  in  Revue  de  l'Orient  chretien  (1898),  iii. 
232 — 259  337 — 392,  and  separately,  Les  Plerophories  de  Jean,  eveque  de 
Maiouma,  Paris,   1899. 

§  101.    Procopius  of  Gaza  and  Aeneas  of  Gaza. 

I .  PROCOPIUS.  —  The  sophist-schools  of  Hellenism  were  already 
on  the  decline  when  the  schools  of  the  Syrian  city  of  Gaza,  favored 
by  various  circumstances,  entered  upon  a  brief  period  of  prosperity. 
A  multitude  of  noble  youths  came  thither  from  the  remotest  quarters 
for  the  study  of  eloquence,    then   a   usual   preliminary  to  all  special 


542  THIRD    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

studies.    All  the  known  sophists  of  Gaza  in  the  fifth  and  sixth  cen- 
turies are  Christian,    though    their  rhetorical  works  might  well  have 
been  written  by  pagans.    Two  of  them,  however,  are  men  of  earnest- 
ness and  conviction;    we   owe   to    them    commentaries   on    the  Holy 
Scripture  and  apologetic  works.     The  most  brilliant  of  these  Gazan 
sophists  is  Procopius,  whose  life  falls  into  the  period  between  465  and 
528.    Antioch,  Tyre   and  Caesarea   tempted  him  in  vain  to  abandon 
his  native  town;  the  famous  orator  and  teacher  ignored  their  seduc- 
tions and  after  a  brief  absence  settled  permanently  in  Gaza,  where  he 
devoted  himself  without  interruption  to  learned  studies.    His  copious 
correspondence  bewrays  the  rhetorician  in  its  tendency  and  coloring1, 
similarly  his  panegyric  on  the  emperor  Anastasius  (491  —  518),  written 
between  512  and  515  2.    Other  writings  of  this  kind  have  perished  or 
have  not  yet  been  recovered.    For  chronological  reasons  he  cannot  be 
the  author  of  a  description   of  the   new  Sancta  Sophia,    finished   in 
537  —  5383,  nor  of  a  lament  for  its  destruction  by  an  earthquake  in 
5584.    Procopius   consigned    the  results  of  his  theological  studies  to 
a  series  of  commentaries  on  the  Old  Testament.    It  is  supposed  that 
we  have  lost  his  comprehensive  work  on  the  Octateuch,  one  of  the 
earliest  specimens  of  the  «Catenae».    In  it  he  had  collected,  without 
systematic  order,  a  great  many  quotations  from  all  kinds  of  authors. 
It  is  highly  probable  that  this  work  was  the  basis  of  the  Catena  on 
the  Octateuch  (and  the  four  Books  of  Kings)   published  at  Leipzig, 
1772  — 1773,    by  the  Greek  Nicephorus,    in    two  folio  volumes.     An 
extract   from  this  larger  work,    executed   by  Procopius   himself,    was 
edited   in   1555  in   a  Latin   translation;    only  portions   of  the  Greek 
text  have  hitherto    been   published5.     This  extract  is  also  a  Catena- 
commentary,  though  it  diners  from  the  other  works  of  that  kind  in 
the   anonymous   character   of  its   quotations,    nor   does    it   give   the 
complete  comment  of  the  authors  quoted,    but   only  extracts   there- 
from.   Eisenhofer  has  shown  that  the  authors  most  copiously  drawn 
on  are  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  and  Basil  the  Great. 
Procopius  gave  also  a  Catena-like  character  to  his  lengthy  commen- 
tary on  Isaias6.    Theodoret    of  Cyrus   furnishes   the   greater   part  of 
the  scholia  to  the  four  Books  of  Kings  and  the  two  Books  of  Para- 
lipomenon  7.    Paraphrases  of  the  three  Solomonic  books,  current  under 
the   name   of  Procopius,    are   only   partially   published;    they   are   a 
commentary   on  Proverbs8,    a    fragment   of  a  Catena   on  Proverbs9, 
a  Catena  on  the  Canticle  of  canticles  10,  and  a  fragment  of  a  commen- 
tary on  the  same1*.    All  of  them  await  a  closer  investigation  of  their 
1  Migne,  PG.,  lxxxvii  2,  2717—2792  f.  2  Ib#>  lxxxvii  %  2793__282(5 

3  Ib.,  lxxxvii  3,  2827—2838.  *  Ib  ;  lxxxyii  3)  2839_2842> 

'  Ib.,  lxxxvii    1,   21  —  1080.  e  Ib.,  lxxxvii  2,   181 7—2718. 

7  Ib.,  lxxxvii   1,   1079— 1220.  s  Ib<  lxxxyii    t.    I22I_I544 

9  Ib.,  lxxxvii  2,   1779— 1800.  10  lhj  lxxxvji   h   I545_I754. 

11  lb.,  lxxxvii   i,   1755— 1780. 


§  IOI.   PROCOPIUS  OF  GAZA  AND  AENEAS  OF  GAZA.        543 

origin.  A  fragment  of  a  polemical  work  against  the  Neoplatonist 
Proclus  *  is  identical  with  a  chapter  of  Nicholas,  bishop  of  Methone, 
against  Proclus,  written  at  the  end  of  the  twelfth  century.  We  cannot 
admit,  with  Dräseke,  that  we  have  here  a  new  and  unmodified  edi- 
tion of  a  work  of  Procopius,  and  think  it  probable,  with  Stiglmayr, 
that  the  fragment  is  wrongly  attributed  to  our  author. 

The  only  complete  edition  of  the  works  of  Procopius  is  in  Migne, 
PG.,  Ixxxvii,  parts  i — 3.  His  correspondence  was  edited  anew  by  K.  Hercher, 
Epistolographi  Graeci,  Paris,  1873,  pp.  533 — 598;  a  letter,  lacking  in 
Hercher,  is  found  in  Fabricius- Harks ,  Bibl.  Gr.,  ix.  296.  Three  other 
unedited  letters  were  published  by  N.  Festa,  Animadversiones  criticae  in 
Procopii  Gazaei  epistulas,  in  Bessarione  v  (1900 — 1901),  vol.  viii,  36 — 42; 
cf.  L.  Galante,  Contributo  alio  studio  delle  epistole  di  Procopio  di  Gaza, 
in  Studi  Italiani  di  filologia  classica  (1901),  ix.  207—236.  For  recent  re- 
searches on  the  sources  of  the  exegetical  writings  of  Procopius  cf.  L,  Eisen- 
hofer,  Procopius  von  Gaza,  Freiburg  i.  Br.,  1897.  The  Catena  on  Proverbs 
only  partially  published,  is  discussed  by  E.  Bratke,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  wissen- 
schaftliche Theol.  (1896),  xxxix.  303 — 312;  on  the  Catena  on  the  Canticle 
of  canticles  see  Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons  etc. 
(1883),  ii.  239  fr.;  on  the  fragment  against  Proclus  cf.  D.  Russos,  TpsT? 
FaCatot  (Inaug.-Diss.) ,  Constantinople,  1893,  pp.  57 — 69;  J.  Dräseke,  in 
Byzant.  Zeitschr.  (1897),  vi.  55 — 91;  J.  Stiglmayr,  ib.  (1899),  viii.  263 — 301. 
E.  Lindi,  Die  Oktateuchkatene  des  Prokop  von  Gaza  und  die  Septuaginta- 
forschung,  Munich,  1902;  this  work  treats  of  important  manuscript-traces 
of  the  larger  work  of  Procopius  on  the  Octateuch,  and  discussess  its  biblical 
text.  On  the  life  of  Procopius  see  J.  Seiiz,  Die  Schule  von  Gaza  (Inaug.- 
Diss.) ,  Heidelberg,  1892,  pp.  9 — 21;  cf.  C.  Kirsten,  Quaestiones  Chori- 
cianae  (Breslauer  philol.  Abhandlungen  vii.  2),  1895,  pp.  8  ff.  —  The  new 
church  of  Sancta  Sophia  was  consecrated  Dec.  24.,  563,  and  the  solem- 
nity was  celebrated  by  Paulus  Silentiarius  in  a  description  of  the  Church 
and  the  pulpit  (ajxßtov),  written  in  fluent  hexameters  and  very  precious  for 
the  history  of  ecclesiastical  art  (Migne,  PG.,  lxxxvi  2,  2 119 — 2158  2251 
to  2264).  y.  y.  Kreutzer,  Paulus  des  Silentiariers  Beschreibung  der  Haghia 
Sophia,  Leipzig,  1875.  Paulus  also  wrote  a  lyric  carmen  on  the  Pythic  hot 
springs  ofBithynia  {Migne,  1.  c,  2263  —  2268).  For  other  works  of  Paulus 
see  y.  Merian-  Genast ,  De  Paulo  Silentiario  Byzantino  Nonni  sectatore 
(Diss.  Inaug.),  Leipzig,   1889. 

2.  AENEAS  OF  GAZA.  —  The  distinguished  and  contemporary 
rhetorician  Aeneas  was  the  magnet  that  attracted  to  Gaza  a  body 
of  students  at  once  select  and  numerous.  Aeneas  seems  to  have 
been  born  a  little  earlier  than  Procopius  and  to  have  outlived  him. 
He  owes  his  mediaeval  fame  to  an  anti-Neoplatonist  dialogue  written 
before  534:  «Theophrastus,  or  on  the  immortality  of  the  soul  and 
the  resurrection  of  the  body» 2.  Twenty-five  short  letters  (lacking 
in  Migne)  are  much  more  attractive  as  specimens  of  contemporary 
Hellenic  literature. 

The  last  separate  edition  of  the  «Theophrastus»  dialogue  is  that  of 
y.  Fr.  Boissonade,  Paris,  1836.  The  Greek  text  of  this  edition  is  accom- 
panied   by    the    Latin    translation    of  Ambrosius    Camaldulensis   (f    1439). 

1  Ib.,  Ixxxvii  2,   2792  e — h.  2  lb.,  lxxxv.  871  — 1004. 


544 


THIRD    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 


The  letters  were  re-edited  by  Her  eher ,  1.  c,  pp.  24—32.  Cf.  D.  Russos, 
TpEt;  IaSaibi  (Inaug.-Diss.),  Constantinople,  1893.  G.  Schalkhausser,  Äneas 
von  Gaza  als  Philosoph  (Inaug.-Diss.),  Erlangen,  1898. 

3.  Johannes  PHILOPONUS.  —  The  theological  labors  of  the  Alexandrine 
grammarian  Johannes  were  less  successful.  He  was  a  younger  contemporary 
and  colleague  of  the  above-mentioned  sophists,  and  his  untiring  activity  earned 
for  him  the  name  of  Philoponus  (cptXo-ovoc).  His  most  important  work 
bears  the  title  of  «The  arbiter»  (öiairrpfc) ;  it  is  a  dialectico-speculative 
discussion  of  the  doctrine  concerning  Christ  and  the  Trinity,  and  is  written 
in  favor  of  Monophysitism  and  Tritheism.  Only  fragments  of  the  work 
have  reached  us.  According  to  his  opponent  Leontius  of  Byzantium  (De 
sectis;  cf.  §  102,  1)  our  writer  maintained  that  there  were  TpeT?  [xspixal 
oujt'ai  in  God,  and  one  oucriot  xoivVj,  the  latter  existent  only  as  an  abstrac- 
tion. He  also  wrote  a  (lost)  work  on  the  resurrection  of  the  body  (irept 
7.va<rca<T£iD?),  in  which  he  denied  the  absolute  identity  of  our  actual  bodies 
Avith  those  of  the  resurrection.  There  are  extant  a  work  of  Philoponus 
on  the  creation  of  the  world:  De  aeternitate  mundi  contra  Proclum,  last 
edited  by  H.  Rabe,  Leipzig,  1899;  a  commentary  on  the  biblical  account 
of  creation :  De  opificio  mundi  libri  vii,  last  edited  by  G.  Reichardt,  Leipzig, 
1897  ;  and  a  Libellus  de  paschate,  edited  by  C.  Walter,  Jena,  1899.  For 
other  details  concerning  his  theological  writings  cf.  Stöekl,  in  Wetzer  und 
Weites  Kirchenlexikon,  2.  ed.,  vi.  1748 — 1754.  Concerning  his  theological 
doctrine  see  J.  M.  Schönfelder ,  Die  Kirchengeschichte  des  Johannes  von 
Ephesus,  Munich,  1862,  pp.  267  —  311:  «Die  Tritheiten».  Among  the  cele- 
brated writers  of  the  Tritheists  was  Stephen  Gobarus  (about  600),  known 
to  us  now  only  through  an  excerpt  from  his  principal  work  preserved  by 
Photius  (Bibl.  Cod.  232). 

4.  Anonymi  hermippus  de  ASTROLOGiA  DiALOGUS.  —  About  500,  ap- 
parently, a  Neoplatonist  Christian  published  a  dialogue  in  two  books  en- 
titled «Hermippus  or  concerning  Astrology».  In  it  he  maintained  that  the 
latter  was  compatible  with  Christian  faith.  It  was  edited  by  O.  D.  Bloch, 
Kopenhagen,  1830,  and  by  W.  Kroll  and  P.  Viereck,  Leipzig,  1895.  The 
author  is  unknown.  Cf.  A.  Elter,  in  Byzant.  Zeitschr.  (1897),  vi.  164  f.; 
Krumbacher,  ib.  (1898),  vii.  460;  J.  Dräseke,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  wissenschaftl. 
Theol.  (1900),  xliii.  613 — 625. 

§  102.    Leontius  of  Byzantium  and  the  emperor  Justinian. 

I.  LEONTIUS  OF  BYZANTIUM.  —  Formerly  the  personality  and 
literary  labors  of  Leontius  of  Byzantium  were  very  imperfectly  known  ; 
much  light  has  been  thrown  on  both  by  the  recent  researches  of 
Loofs.  Leontius  was  born  apparently  about  485,  perhaps  in  Scythia, 
but  more  probably  at  Byzantium.  He  was  certainly  of  noble  descent, 
for  he  was  a  relative  of  the  great  general  Vitalian.  His  own  words  * 
lead  us  to  think  that  he  put  on  the  monastic  habit  while  quite 
young.  He  tells  us  in  the  same  place  that  when  a  young  man  he 
resolved  to  acquire  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  doctrines  of  the 
Church,  and  that  he  took  a  very  lively  interest  in  all  the  dogmatic 
discussions  of  the  time.  In  Scythia  he  fell  into  the  snares  of  Nestori- 
anism,  but  was  freed  from  them  by  his  intercourse  with  the  learned 
men  whom  he  met  during  his  travels;    thenceforth   he   was   a   loyal 

1  Adv.  Nest,  et  Eut    iii. 


§    I02.      LEONTIUS    OF    BYZANTIUM    AND    THE    EMPEROR  JUSTINIAN.       545 

defender  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  He  appeared 
at  Constantinople  and  Rome  in  519  in  the  company  of  certain 
monks  of  Scythia  who  maintained  the  proposition  that  «one  of  the 
Trinity  had  suffered  in  the  flesh».  A  little  later  we  find  him  in  retire- 
ment in  the  so-called  New  Laura  (a  village-like  colony  of  hermits 
in  the  vicinity  of  Jerusalem).  In  531  he  took  part  in  the  conference 
that  Justinian  had  arranged  at  Constantinople  between  the  Catholics 
and  the  Severians,  and  probably  he  spent  the  following  years  at  the 
capital.  In  558  he  appears  again  in  his  cloister  near  Jerusalem. 
Once  more,  perhaps  in  542,  he  returned  to  Constantinople,  where  he 
died,  apparently  about  543,  and  before  the  first  edict  of  Justinian 
against  the  Three  Chapters  (see  no.  3).  His  oscillation  between 
Constantinople  and  Jerusalem  is  sufficient  to  explain  the  titles  of 
monachus  Hierosolymitanus  and  monachus  Byzantinus  by  which  he 
is  frequently  designated.  —  Leontius  is  the  author  of  «three  books 
against  the  Nestorians  and  the  Eutychians :  Xoyoc  y  xaza  Necrcoptavwv 
xdi  EüTüytavtaTwy1,  composed,  according  to  intrinsic  evidence,  between 
529  and  544.  The  first  book  is  directed  at  once  against  both  here- 
sies; he  explains  that  though  mutually  contradictory,  they  may  be 
refuted  simultaneously,  since  they  take  their  rise  from  the  same  false 
hypotheses,  however  far  apart  the  conclusions  at  which  they  arrive: 
S60  uTzoardaeiq,  fiia  (puaiq.  The  second  book  is  devoted  to  the  over- 
throw of  the  Eutychian  or  Monophysite  heresy,  and  more  particularly 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  Julianists  or  Aphthartodocetes  (§  99,  3).  A 
Catholic  and  an  Aphthartodocete  are  introduced  as  the  interlocutors 
in  the  dialogue.  The  entire  work  is  admirably  executed,  and  reveals 
at  once  an  acute  mind  and  an  extensive  knowledge  of  Christian 
literature.  In  the  preface  he  describes  as  follows  the  order  and 
development  of  the  dispute:  «I  shall  first  demonstrate  the  thesis 
that  the  nature  of  the  divinity  of  Christ  and  the  nature  of  His 
humanity  existed  and  continued  to  exist  after  the  Union;  after- 
wards I  shall  treat  of  the  mutual  relations  of  these  two  natures  and 
of  their  modes  of  existence».  The  third  book  is  written  against  the 
Nestorians  and  is  more  historical  than  polemical  in  character;  in 
it  he  is  specially  intent  on  exhibiting  the  dogmatic  and  exegetic 
heresies  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia.  Loofs  is  of  opinion  that  he 
wrote  against  the  above-mentioned  heresies  another  and  no  less  im- 
portant  work  known  as:  o%6ha.  The  homonymous  work  current 
under  the  name  of  Leontius,  known  as  De  sectis2,  is  in  Loofs' 
opinion  only  a  later  edition  of  the  original  composition;  similarly  in 
the  works  commonly  entitled  Adversus  Nestorianos  and  Contra 
Monophysitas*  Loofs  recognizes  only  later  elaborations  of  separate 
sections  of  the  original  oyoha.     Fragments  of  the  original  work  are 

1  Migne,  PG.,  lxxxvi   I,    1267 — 1396.  2  Ib.,  lxxxvi   1,    11 93 — 1268. 

3  Ib.,  lxxxvi   i,    1399 — 1768,  and  lxxxvi  2,    1769— 1901. 
Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  35 


546  THIRD    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

also  to  be  recognized,  Loofs  thinks,  in  some  quotations  from 
it  in  the  compilation  known  as:  Antiquorum  patrum  doctrina  de 
Verbi  incarnatione 1 ;  in  the  «Confutation  of  the  arguments  of  Se- 
verus»  :  eTt'duatQ  tohs  utto  leijTjpoo  npoßzßlripivcov  ou/loytaptov2  (a 
genuine  work  of  Leontius),  and  in  the  «Thirty  theses  against  Se- 
verus»  :  zpiaxouza  xeydlaia  xara  Isoqpou3  (likewise  a  work  of  Leontius 
in  substance  at  least).  The  existence  of  such  a  work  of  Leontius, 
as  Loofs  has  outlined,  and  bearing  the  title  of  oyoha,  is  denied  by 
several  critics;  their  objections,  however,  do  not  affect  the  catalogue 
of  the  writings  of  Leontius  as  drawn  up  by  Loofs.  —  The  latter 
ascribes  to  an  elder  contemporary  of  Leontius  the  authorship  of 
the  treatise  known  as:  Adversus  fraudes  Apollinistarum4.  This  re- 
markable little  work  was  written  to  show  that  several  quotations 
from  Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  Athanasius  and  Pope  Julius  I.,  which 
the  Monophysite  heretics  made  use  of  in  their  disputes  with  the 
Catholics,  were  really  taken  from  the  works  of  Apollinaris  of  Lao- 
dicea  and  maliciously  attributed  to  the  aforesaid  venerable  Fathers 
by  Apollinarists  or  Eutychians  or  followers  of  Dioscurus.  Modern 
critical  research  has  amply  confirmed  these  assertions  (§  61,  4).  — 
Most  of  the  above-mentioned  writings  were  first  edited  by  Cardinal 
A.  Mai  in  the  original  Greek;  he  declared  Leontius  to  be  the  fore- 
most theologian  of  his  epoch:  in  theologica  scientia  aevo  suo  facile 
princeps.  The  Christology  of  Leontius  is  that  of  Cyril  of  Alexandria. 
It  is  in  his  writings  that  the  term  huxooraroQ  is  first  met  with. 
The  human  nature  of  Christ,  he  says,  is  not  dvoTruazaroQ,  nor  even 
üTiöaramQ,  but  swTroazazog5  i.  e.  iv  zco  Xuycp  uTtoazdaa6.  It  is  doubt- 
ful whether  our  Leontius,  as  Loofs  thinks,  should  be  identified  with 
a  monk  of  the  same  name  in  Jerusalem  mentioned  in  the  Vita  S.  Sabae 
(§  io4,  0  written  by  Cyril  of  Scythopolis.  In  any  case,  our  Leontius 
cannot  be  accused  of  Origenism,  as  the  monk  in  question  was. 
Leontius  of  Byzantium  never  defended  the  cause  of  Origen ;  he  was 
even  a  vigorous  opponent  of  the  Origenistic  eschatology. 

2.    WORKS   ON  LEONTIUS    OF  BYZANTIUM.     SEVERUS  OF  ANTIOCH.    JOHANNES 

maxentius.  —  Fr.  Loofs ,  Leontius  von  Byzanz  und  die  gleichnamigen 
Schriftsteller  der  griech.  Kirche  (book  i :  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  etc., 
in.  1—2),  Leipzig,  1887.  The  only  complete  edition  of  his  work  is  in 
Migne,  PG.,  lxxxvi.  1  2,  Paris,  1865.  Concerning  this  edition  cf.  Loofs, 
1.  c,  pp.  8— n.  W.  Rügamer,  Leontius  von  Byzanz  (Inaug.-Diss.),  Würz- 
burg, 1894.  V.  Ermoni,  De  Leontio  Byzantino,  Paris,  1895.  There  is  a 
circumstantial  account  of  the  religious  conference  of  531  (not  533)  between 
the  Catholics  and  the  Severians  in  a  letter  from  one  of  the  Catholic  re- 
presentatives, Innocent,  bishop  of  Maronia  (east  of  Philippi  in  the  Aegean), 
to  a  friendly  priest;  unfortunately  it  has  reached  us  only  in  a  Latin  trans- 

1  Migne,  PC,  lxxxvi   2,   2003—2016.  2  lb ^    I9I5__I945> 

3  Ib.,   1901— 1916.  *  Ib.,   i947—I976. 

5  Adv.  Nest,  et  Eut.  I:   1277  D. 

6  Adv.  Argum.   Sev. :    1944C. 


§    102.      LEONTIUS    OF    BYZANTIUM    AND    THE    EMPEROR  JUSTINIAN.       547 

lation  and  in  a  very  imperfect  shape ;  it  may  be  seen  in  Mansi,  SS.  Cone. 
Coll.,  viii.  817 — 834  (lacking   in  Migne).     Cf.  Hefele,  Konziliengeschichte, 
2.  ed.,  ii.  747—751;  Loofs,  1.  c,  pp.  261 — 268.    The  compilation  of  Dio- 
nysius  Exiguus  entitled :  Pro  controversia  de  uno  e  Trinitate  in  carne  passo 
(§  114,  3),    contains    another    letter    of   Innocent:    De    his    qui    unura    ex 
Trinitate  vel  imam  subsistentiam   seu   personam  Dominum   nostrum  Iesum 
Christum    dubitant  confiteri;   cf.  Spicilegium  Casinense  i.    148 — 154.     The 
compilation  known  as  Antiquorum  patrum  doctrina  de  Verbi  incarnations 
(Mai,  Scriptorum  vet.  nova  Coll.,  Rome,    1833,  vn   x>   1  —  73 ;   lacking   in 
Migne)  was  composed,  according  to  Loo fs  (1.  c,  pp.  92  ff.),  beetween  662 
and  679  and  is  based  on  earlier  works  of  the  kind.   Loofs  does  not  agree 
with   the   conjecture   of  Le  Quien   that    its    author   was  Anastasius   Sinaita 
(§  107,  4);    cf.  D.  Serruys,  Anastasiana  I:    Antiquorum   patrum  doctr.  de 
Verbi   incarnatione ,    in  Melanges   d'archeologie   et  d'histoire  (1902),    xxii. 
157  f.  —  Severus   of  Antioch,    a    celebrated   orator   and  very   productive 
writer,  was  made  Monophysite  bishop  of  that  see  in  512,  but  iii  518  was 
compelled  to  seek  refuge  at  Alexandria  \  there  he  sustained  against  Julian  of 
Halicarnassus  (§  99,  3)  that  previous  to  the  resurrection  the  body  of  Christ 
partook  of  the  defects  and  sufferings  common  to  all  human  bodies.     The 
followers  of  Severus  were  called  Phthartolatres  by  their  Julianist  opponents, 
i.  e.  adorers  of  that  which  is  corruptible.    Severus  died  in  Egypt  about  539 ; 
cf.  J.  Eustratios,  i'surjpoj  6  jAovocpucjiTrj?  iraxpiocp^Yj?  Avrio/sia?,  Leipzig,   1894. 
Only  fragments  of  the  Greek  text  of  his  writings  have  reached  us,  partly 
in  anti-Monophysite   works   and   partly   in  Catenae.     Cardinal  Mai  began 
the  editing  of  these  fragments,  in  Script,  vet.  nova  Coll.,  Rome,   1837,  ix. 
725 — 741:  fragments  of  a  Catena  on  Isaias  and  Ezechiel;  in  Classici  auc- 
tores  (1838),   x.  408—473:    fragments  relative   to   the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke 
and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles;   in  Spicilegium  Romanum  (1844),' x  1,  202 
to  205 :    fragments   of  a  Catena   on  Job.     The  Oratio   ii   de  resurrectione 
Domini  published  among  the  works  of  Gregory  of  Nyssa  (Migne,  PG.,  xlvi. 
627 — 652)  belongs   to  Severus   and   is   a  remarkable  attempt  at  harmoniz- 
ing the  Gospel-narratives  of  the  apparitions  of  the  Risen  Lord  (§  69,   n). 
Many  works  of  Severus  are  extant  in  Syriac  versions.     The   one  hundred 
and  twenty-five  Ao-pi    £-if)povioi   or  svttpovimxoi   i.  e.  homilies   delivered   in 
his  quality  of  Antiochene  patriarch,  were  translated  from  Greek  into  Syriac 
about  525  by  Paul   of  Callinicus  and   again   in  701    by  Jacob   of  Edessa; 
both  versions   have    reached    us,    at   least   in    part,    but   hitherto   only  an 
insignificant  portion  of  these  Syriac  translations  has  been  printed;  among 
the  printed   texts   are:    a   baptismal   ritual,    Antwerp,    1572  (cf.  A.  Resch, 
Agrapha  [in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  v.  4],  Leipzig,   1889,    pp.  361  to 
372);   some  fragments  of  homilies,    in  E.  Nestle,    Brevis   linguae  Syriacae 
grammatica,  Karlsruhe,   1881   (Chrestomathia  pp.  79—83),  the  «fifty-second 
homily»    on    the    Maccabees    is    printed    in    two    different    translations    in 
Bensly- Barnes,  The  fourth  book   of  Maccabees,  Cambridge,   1895,    pp.  75 
to  102  (cf.  the  English  translation  of  the  first  version,  given  ib.,  pp.  xxvii 
to  xxxiv).     Some  other  fragments  of  Severus,    translated   from  Syriac  into 
Latin,    may   be  seen  in  Mai,   Script,  vet.    nova  Coll.    ix.  742—759:    four 
homilies,   in  Spicil.  Rom.   x  1,    169 — 201:    extracts    from    a  work   against 
Julian  of  Halicarnassus,  and  pp.  212—229:  a  homily  on  the  Blessed  Virgin. 
On  the  Syriac  versions  of  the  X070-  kttftpövtoi  see  A.  Baumstark,  in  Rom. 
Quartalschr.  (1897),    xi.  32—46.     A.  Kugener ,   Allocution   prononcee   par 
Severe   apres   son  elevation  sur   le  tröne  patriarcal  d'Antioche,    in  Oriens 
christianus  (1902),  pp.  265  —  282.    For  a  fragment  (in  French)  of  a  homily  by 
Severus  on  St.  Barlaam  of  Antioch  see  Analecta  Bollandiana  (1903),   xxii. 
133  —  134.    The  doctrine  of  Severus  is  treated  of  by  Loofs,  1.  c,  pp.  30—32 


548  THIRD    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

cj4_59.  rfhe  latter  made  special  use  of  a  work  entitled:  Ad  Timotheum 
scholasticum  de  duabus  naturis  adversus  Severura  [Migne,  PG.,  lxxxvi  i, 
901—942),  written  in  the  sixth  century  by  a  monk  Eustathius,  otherwise 
unknown  to  us.  —  Valuable  letters  of  Severus  have  lately  been  edited 
(London,  1904)  by  E.  W.  Brooks,  The  sixth  book  of  the  Select  Letters  of 
Severus  of  Antioch  in  the  Syriac  version  of  Athanasius  of  Nisibis,  Text 
and  Translation  Society,  vol.  i,  part  I  (Syriac  text),  vol.  ii,  part  I  (English 
version).  On  the  life  and  the  works  of  Severus  see  various  volumes  in 
the  series  «Patrologia  Orientalis»  now  being  edited  by  Graf  fin  and  Nau, 
Paris.  —  The  so-called  «Scythian  monks»  appear  at  Constantinople  in 
516.  Their  leader  or  mouthpiece  is  a  certain  John  surnamed  Maxentius. 
They  sought  to  raise  a  new  shibboleth  of  orthodoxy  in  the  words:  «one 
of  the  Trinity  has  suffered  in  the  flesh»,  while  others  insisted  that  there 
should  be  neither  change  nor  addition  in  the  text  of  the  creed  of  Chal- 
cedon  (451).  Thus  arose  what  is  known  as  the  Theopaschite  controversy. 
These  monks  desired  also  the  condemnation  of  the  writings  of  the  lately 
deceased  Faustus,  bishop  of  Reji  (§  in),  asserting  that  they  were  favorable 
to  Pelagianism.  This  demand,  likewise,  aroused  much  opposition.  The 
controversies  had  already  entered  a  graver  phase  when  the  legates  of 
Pope  Hormisdas  arrived  at  Constantinople,  March  25.,  519,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  reconciling  the  Churches  of  Rome  and  Constantinople,  a  step 
made  possible  by  the  death  of  the  emperor  Anastasius  I.  (July  9.,  518), 
cf.  §  99,  4.  Maxentius  presented  to  the  legates  in  the  name  of  the  «Scy- 
thian monks»  a  petition  (Epist.  ad  legatos  sedis  apostolicae ;  Migne,  PG., 
lxxxvi.  75 — 86)  that  was  unsuccessful,  whereupon  they  departed  for  Rome 
in  the  hope  of  obtaining  from  Pope  Hormisdas  a  more  favorable  reply. 
As  the  pope  delayed  his  decision,  they  then  had  recourse  to  certain 
bishops  of  Africa  resident  in  Sardinia,  whither  they  had  been  exiled  by 
king  Thrasamund.  The  African  bishops,  particularly  Fulgentius  of  Ruspe 
(§  ll3>  S)>  sustained  with  vigor  the  cause  of  the  monks  (see  *S.  Fulg., 
Ep.  17  de  incarnatione  et  gratia,  written  in  reply  to  the  work  of  Petrus 
Diaconus,  De  incarnatione  et  gratia:  Migne,  PL.,  lxii.  83 — 92.  Early  in 
August  520  the  monks  left  Rome  for  Constantinople.  In  the  same  month 
(Aug.  13.,  520),  the  pope  wrote  to  Possessor,  an  African  bishop  resident 
at  Constantinople,  condemning  in  strong  terms  the  conduct  of  the  Scy- 
thian monks,  and  especially  the  attitude  of  their  representatives  at  Rome ; 
as  to  the  works  of  Faustus,  the  pope  declares ,  they  were  not  among  the 
approved  works  of  the  Fathers ;  the  sound  doctrine  concerning  grace  and 
liberty  could  be  learned  from  the  works  of  St.  Augustine  (S.  Horm.  P., 
Ep.  70).  This  letter  was  severely  criticised  by  Maxentius:  Ad  epistulam 
Hormisdae  responsio;  Migne,  PG.,  lxxxvi  1,  93 — 112.  It  is  believed  that 
the  priest  John  to  whom  St.  Fulgentius  addressed  in  523  his  De  veritate 
praedestinationis  et  gratiae  Dei,  and  the  priest  or  archimandrite  John  to 
whom,  somewhat  later,  the  Epistola  synodica  of  the  African  bishops  [Hefele, 
Konziliengesch.,  2.  ed.,  ii.  697 — 702)  was  written,  are  identical  with  Johannes 
Maxentius.  Loofs  does  not  accept  this  identification  (1.  c,  pp.  260  f.), 
and  in  case  the  identification  is  unfounded,  there  is  no  trace  of  the 
Scythian  monks  and  their  patron  Maxentius  later  than  the  letter  of 
Hormisdas  and  the  reply  of  Maxentius.  The  latter  wrote  also  dialogues 
against  the  Nestorians  [Migne,  PG.,  lxxxvi  1,  115— 158)  and  a  treatise 
against  the  Acephali  (xMonophysites),  ib.,  in— 116.  All  his  works  have 
come  down  to  us  in  Latin,  and  it  is  quite  certain  that  they  were  originally 
written  in  Latin.  The  first  and  only  edition  of  Maxentius  is  that  of 
J.  Cochlaeus,  executed  from  a  Nürnberg  codex  of  the  writings  of  St.  Ful- 
gentius;   this    edition    was    published    as    an    appendix    to    tne    edition    of 


§    102.      LEONTIUS    OF    BYZANTIUM    AND   THE    EMPEROR  JUSTINIAN.       549 

St.  Cyprian  by  Erasmus  (Basel,  1520)  and  in  the  edition  of  the  works  of 
St.  Fulgentius  by  W.  Pirkheimer  and  Cochlaeus  (Hagenau,  1520).  The  text 
of  Maxentius  in  Migne  (1.  c,  73—158)  is,  according  to  Loofs,  «in  more 
ways  than  one  a  secondhand  and,  therefore,  variously  disfigured  reprint« 
of  the  Cochlaeus  edition.  At  the  best,  the  works  of  our  author  are  in  a 
very  tangled  condition.  Thus,  the  Professio  de  Christo  (ib.,  79—86),  printed 
as  a  separate  work  ,  is  certainly  a  part  of  the  immediately  preceding 
Epistola  ad  legatos  sedis  apostolicae  (ib.,  75 — 78).  Loofs  is  the  only 
modern  writer  who  has  studied  minutely  the  history  of  the  Scythian  monks 
(1.  c.r  pp.  229 — 261). 

3.  THE  EMPEROR  JUSTINIAN.  —  Justinian  I.,  who  governed  the 
Roman  empire  so  long  and  famously  (527  —  565),  though  amid  many 
vicissitudes  of  fortune,  claims  a  place  among  the  ecclesiastical  writers 
of  the  sixth  century.  It  is  true  that  most  of  his  so-called  theological 
writings1,  when  stripped  of  their  doctrinal  accessories,  appear  as  ad- 
ministrative acts.  As  such,  though  always  undertaken  with  the 
purest  intentions,  they  represent  a  perilous  interference  with  the 
internal  life  of  the  Church.  Nevertheless,  his  ecclesiastical  policy 
was  in  close  and  sympathetic  relation  with  the  literary  labors  of 
his  above-mentioned  contemporary  Leontius;  hence  the  Fifth  Ecu- 
menical Council  (553)  could  accept  the  gist  of  the  imperial  edicts  as 
corresponding  substantially  with  the  faith  of  the  Church.  In  the  guise 
of  a  letter  to  Mennas  of  Constantinople,  Justinian  issued  (Aug.  6.  536) 
a  constitution  fdcdra^gj  against  Anthimus,  Severus,  Petrus  and  Zoaras2; 
it  approves  and  confirms  the  anathema  pronouncd  in  536  by  the 
Synod  of  Constantinople  against  these  Monophysite  bishops.  The 
Tractatus  contra  Monophysitas'*,  published  in  542  or  543,  was  ad- 
dressed to  Egyptian  monks  who  had  abandoned  or  were  about  to 
abandon  that  heresy.  He  published  (January  543)  an  edict  against 
Origen  (Äoyog  xard  'Qptyevoix;^]  so  entitled  in  the  copy  sent  to  the 
patriarch  Mennas).  In  it  he  points  out  the  various  errors  of  the 
Alexandrine  theologian:  subordinationism,  pre-existence  of  the  soul, 
apocatastasis,  multiplicity  of  worlds,  and  other  errors;  he  ends  with 
ten  «anathematisms»  against  Origen.  Diekamp  maintains  that  the 
«letter  to  the  Holy  Synod»  (fpdjxfia  xpog  ttjv  a.jiwj  auvodov)  on 
Origen  and  his  adherents5  was  written  in  March  or  April  553.  An 
edict  of  the  end  of  543  or  the  beginning  of  544,  unfortunately 
lost,  contained  a  long  exposition  of  the  true  faith,  and  at  the  end 
declared  anathema  against  the  person  and  the  writings  of  Theodore 
of  Mopsuestia,  the  works  of  Theodoret  of  Cyrus  against  Cyril  of 
Alexandria  and  the  Council  of  Ephesus  (§  78,  7),  and  the  letter 
of  Ibas  of  Edessa  against  the  same  parties  (§  77,  13).  This  is  the 
first  of  the  so-called  edicts  against  the  Three  Chapters.  As  a  rule,  the 
anathemas  of  an  edict  were  called  xsfdXata  (capitula);    in    this   case, 

1  Migne,  PG.,  lxxxvi   1,  945—1152.  2  Ib.,    1095— 1 104. 

3  Ib.,    1 103 -1146.  4  Ib.,  945—990.  6  lb.,  989—994- 


55o 


THIRD    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 


however,  the  term  Tria  capitula,  or  Three  Chapters,  served  at  once 
to  indicate  the  persons  or  writings  that  were  the  object  of  the  ana- 
themas of  the  edict.  In  the  Western  Church  the  imperial  acts  that 
provoked  the  controversy  of  the  Three  Chapters  initiated  a  series 
of  wretched  misunderstandings  (the  so-called  Controversy  of  Three 
Chapters).  Between  551  and  553,  probably  in  the  former  year,  a 
second  and  more  severe  edict,  still  extant  in  its  entirety  (opoAoyia 
TzhrscoQ  xava  toju  zpuov  xsyakauov)  1  was  published  against  the  Three 
Chapters.  Similarly,  an  imperial  edict  (ruitoc,  itpbq  ttjv  ayiav  cruvooovj2, 
addressed  to  the  Fifth  General  Council  on  the  day  of  its  opening 
(May  5.  553),  also  treats  on  Theodore,  Theodoret  and  Ibas.  In 
reply  to  an  otherwise  unknown  protest  against  the  condemnation 
of  the  Three  Chapters,  the  emperor  wrote  a  lengthy  and  acrimonious 
refutation  fWpog  rtvac,  ypd<pauraQ  xai  ixdcxyvavvaq  Geoocopov  xzL)h, 
Hefele  thinks  it  was  written  after  the  Council,  Loofs  is  of  opinion 
that  it  was  written  previous  to  that  event.  Justinian  also  wrote  a 
doctrinal  letter  to  Zoilus,  patriarch  of  Alexandria  (542  to  about  550); 
some  fragments  of  it  are  preserved 4.  A  Bulla  aurea,  addressed  to  the 
abbot  of  Mt.  Sinai,  closes  the  list  of  the  imperial  theological  works 
and  offers  no  dogmatic  interest 5.  Evagrius  assures  us 6  that  shortly 
before  the  emperors's  death  he  issued  a  (lost)  edict  in  favor  of  the 
Aphthartodocetes,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  the  accuracy  of 
this  statement.  At  the  same  time  this  solitary  act  of  the  aged 
emperor  stands  out  in  sharp  contrast  to  what  he  did  in  the  prime 
of  life. 

4.  literature,  contemporary  theologians.  —  In  the  Series  Latina 
of  the  Migne  Cursus  there  are  several  Latin  letters  of  Justinian;  thus, 
among  the  letters  of  Hormisdas  [Migne,  PG. ,  lxiii.  367—534),  John  II. 
(Ib.,  lxvi.  11—32),  Agapitus  I.  (lb.  lxvi.  35  —  80),  and  Vigilius  (Ib.,  lxix. 
15 — 178);  also  most  of  the  above-mentioned  documents  are  extant  in  Greek 
and  Latin  (Ib.,  lxix.  177 — 328),  finally  a  selection  of  (Latin)  imperial  acts 
and  edicts  that  seem  of  importance  for  ecclesiastical  history :  novellae  ad 
religionem  pertinentes,  leges  selectae  (Ib.,  lxxii.  921 — 1110).  Most  of  the 
writings  mentioned  no.  3  are  also  to  be  found  in  the  collections  of  the 
Councils,  e.  g.  Mansi ,  viii — ix.  The  Tractatus  contra  Monophysitas  was 
first  edited  by  Mai,  Script,  vet.  nova  Coll.,  Rome,  1833,  vii  h  292— 313. 
The  Bulla  aurea  to  the  abbot  of  Mt.  Sinai  was  first  made  known  by 
C.  Tischendorf,  in  Anecdota  sacra  et  profana,  Leipzig,  1855  1861,  pp.  56 
to  57.  Ancient  and  reliable  witnesses  assert  that  Justinian  is  the  author 
of  the  Troparium,  an  antiphonal  ecclesiastical  chant,  entitled  6  (Mvo-fsv^« 
uioc  xat  X670C  xm  &SOU,  in  W.  Christ  et  M.  Paranikas,  Anthologia  graeca 
carminum  christianorum,  Leipzig,  187 1,  p.  52;  cf.  p.  xxxii.  For  the  works 
of  Justinian  as  described  above  see  Hefele,  Konziliengeschichte,  2.  ed., 
Freiburg  i.  Br.,  1875,  »•  786—789  798—816  836—844,  and  passim.  Fr. 
Diekamp,    Die   orientalischen   Streitigkeiten    im    6.  Jahrhundert,    Münster, 

1  Migne,  FG.,  lxxxvi    1,  993—1036.  2  Ib  ;    1035— 1042. 

8  Ib.,    1041  — 1096.  4  Ib.,   1145— 1150. 

5  Ib.,    1 149— 1 152.  «  Hist,  eccl.,   iv.  39—41. 


§    I02.      LEONTIUS    OF    BYZANTIUM    AND    THE    EMPEROR  JUSTINIAN.       55  I 

1899,  pp.  37  ft'.  82  ff. ;  Id. ,  Zur  Chronologie  der  origenistischen  Streitig- 
keiten, in  Histor.  Jahrb.  (1900),  xxi.  743—757-  A.  Knecht,  Die  Religions- 
politik Kaiser  Justinians  I.  (Inaug.-Diss.),  Würzburg,  1896.  G.  Pfanmiiller, 
Die  kirchliche  Gesetzgebung  Justinians,  hauptsächlich  auf  Grund  der  No- 
vellen, Berlin,  1902.  —  Agapetus,  a  deacon  of  Sancta  Sophia  at  Constan- 
tinople and  the  teacher  of  Justinian,  dedicated  to  the  emperor,  apparently 
in  527  at  the  beginning  of  his  government,  a  brief  treatise  on  the  duties 
of  a  Christian  prince:  Ix^sotc  xscpaXatwv  napaiveTuuwv ;  Migne,  PG.,  lxxxvi  1, 
1 163 — 1 186.  This  little  manual  for  princes  was  highly  appreciated  at  a 
later  date,  imitated,  and  translated  into  several  modern  vernaculars;  cf. 
Fahr icias- Harles,  Bibl.  gr.  viii.  36—42  (=  Migne,  1.  c,  1 155  — 1 162);  Hoff- 
mann, Bibliographisches  Lexikon,  2.  ed.,  i.  101 — 104.  —  The  writings  of 
Heraclian,  bishop  of  Chalcedon  early  in  the  sixth  century,  have  perished. 
He  is  remembered  for  a  work  against  Soterichus,  bishop  of  Caesarea  in 
Cappadocia,  who  was  inclined  to  Eutychianism ;  for  manuscript  fragments 
(cf.  Le  Quien,  Oriens  christianus,  i.  602  f.);  he  also  wrote  another  work  in 
twenty  books  against  the  Manichaeans,  much  praised  by  Photius  (Bibl.  Cod. 
85  231;  C.  Manich.,  i.  11).  —  Ephraem  of  Antioch  (527 — 545)  was  one  of 
the  most  strenuous  contemporary  defenders  of  the  faith  of  the  Church 
against  Nestorians  and  Eutychians.  Photius  was  acquainted  with  three  of 
his  works;  the  first  contained  discourses  of  a  doctrinal  character  and 
panegyrics  (Bibl.  Cod.  228),  the  second  contained  four  books  of  an  ex- 
clusively doctrinal  character  and  was  devoted  principally  to  the  defence 
of  the  faith  of  Chalcedon  (Cod.  229);  of  the  third  work  Photius  says 
nothing  specific.  A  few  small  fragments  of  Ephrasm  were  found  by  Car- 
dinal Mai  in  a  work  entitled:  ex  apologia  pro  synodo  Chalcedonensi  et 
epistola  S.  Leonis,  e  tertio  libro  contra  Severum.  etc.  [Migne,  PG.,  lxxxvi 
2,  2103 — 2 1 10).  —  In  the  first  half  of  the  sixth  century  a  monk  named 
Job  wrote  a  work  against  Severus,  and  another  entitled  sfocovojAwtf)  -poqfxa- 
ttw,  on  the  Redemption  of  mankind  by  Christ  [Phot.,  Bibl.  Cod.  222); 
the  latter  work  is  described  very  minutely  by  Photius  (1.  a).  A  single 
fragment  of  this  second  work  has  reached  us  {Migne,  1.  c,  lxxxvi.  3313 
to  3320);  the  fragment  which  follows  it  in  Migne  (3320  ff.)  belongs  to 
another  Job,  an  Apollinarist  bishop  (§  61,  4).  —  In  540,  John,  bishop  of 
Scythopolis,  appeared  as  a  defender  of  the  Catholic  faith  against  the  Mono- 
physites  and  as  an  opponent  of  Severus  in  particular.  Concerning  him  and 
his  lost  works  cf.  Loofs,  Leontius  von  Byzanz  (1887),  i.  269 — 272.  —  A 
little  treatise  against  the  Origenistic  doctrines  of  pre-existence  and  apo- 
catastasis,  entitled  «The  teaching  of  St.  Barsanuphius  concerning  the  opi- 
nions of  Origen,  Evagrius,  and  Didymus»  [Migne,  PG. ,  lxxxvi  1,  891  to 
902) ,  was  probably  composed  among  the  Palestinian  monks  about  the 
middle  of  the  sixth  century.  —  A  sharp  denunciation  of  the  errors  of 
Origen  was  composed  about  553  by  Theodore,  bishop  of  Scythopolis  (Ib., 
lxxxvi  1,  231 — 236),  and  addressed  to  Justinian  and  the  patriarchs  of  Con- 
stantinople, Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Jerusalem.  For  Theodore  see  Die- 
kamp,  Die  origenist.  Streitigkeiten,  pp.  125 — 129.  —  There  is  current  under 
the  name  of  St.  Gregentius,  said  to  have  been  bishop  of  Taphar  in  the 
land  of  the  Homerites  (Himjarites  in  Southern  Arabia)  during  the  reign  of 
Justinian,  a  collection  of  the  laws  of  that  people :  vojxot  xwv  cüjxY]piTüiv  (Ib., 
lxxvi  1,  567 — 620)  and  a  controversy  with  a  Jew  named  Herban:  owlzv.z 
fxEta  'louöaioo  cEp|x5v  roovojia  (Ib.,  lxxvi  1,  621  —  784).  These  two  works 
follow  one  another,  and  are  in  a  certain  sense  but  one  work ;  it  is  usually 
stated  that  they  are  forgeries,  though  no  specific  investigation  has  made 
the  fact  evident.  The  political  and  religious  conditions  of  Southern  Arabia 
are  described  by  IV.  Fell,  in  Zeitschr.  der  Deutschen  morgenländ.  Gesell- 


CC2  THIRD   PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

schaft  (1881),  xxxv.  1—74.  The  principal  source  of  our  knowledge  con- 
cerning these  events  is  a  Syriac  letter  of  Simeon,  bishop  of  Betharsam 
(510—525),  concerning  the  martyrs  of  the  land  of  the  Homerites  (cf.  Fell, 
1.  c,  pp.  2  ff.) ;  it  was  edited  and  translated  into  Italian  by  J.  Guidi,  Rome, 
1881,  in  Reale  Accademia  dei  Lincei,  anno  278.  J.  Deramey ,  Les  mar- 
tyrs de  Nedjran  au  pays  des  Homerites,  en  Arabie  (522—525),  Paris, 
x393>  _  Another  contemporary  of  Justinian  was  the  monk  Alexander  of 
Salamina,  known  as  the  author  of  a  panegyric  (Ifxu^w*)  on  St.  Barnabas 
(Migne,  PG.,  lxxxvii  3,  4087—4106,  only  in  a  Latin  version,  though  the 
Greek  text  was  available  in  Acta  SS.  Junii,  ii.  436—453)-  For  a  de- 
tailed account  of  this  discourse  see  Lipsius ,  Die  apokryphen  Apostel- 
geschichten, Brunswick,  1884,  ii  2,  298-  304.  In  another  discourse  Alex- 
ander took  for  his  theme  the  finding  of  the  Holy  Cross :  /.070?  el;  xty 
eSpeaw  too  tijiiou  xftl  Cwotcowu  «rraopou  (Ib.,  lxxxvii  3,  4015 — 4076,  and  sum- 
marized, Ib.,  lxxxvii  3,  4077 — 4088). 

§  103.    Historians  and  Geographers. 

1.  THEODORUS  LECTOR.  —  This  writer  held  the  office  of  ana- 
gnostes  or  reader  (lector)  in  the  church  of  Sancta  Sophia  at  Con- 
stantinople, in  the  first  half  of  the  sixth  century.  We  possess  from 
his  pen  two  works  of  an  ecclesiastico-historical  character.  The  first 
is  an  epitome  in  two  books  of  the  ecclesiastico-historical  works  of 
Socrates,  Sozomen  and  Theodoret,  with  an  independent  continuation 
reaching  to  Justin  I.  (518 — 527),  also  in  two  books.  The  second 
work  is  known  to  us  only  through  a  few  excerpts  that  have  been 
united  with  others  of  the  same  nature,  and  in  the  manuscripts  are 
entitled:  äizb  <pcov9JQ  Nixypopou  KaDdazoo,  but  are  in  reality  much 
older  than  the  church-historian  Nicephorus  Callistus  in  the  beginning 
of  the  fourteenth  century.  The  first  work  is  extant  in  manuscripts 
but  has  not  yet  been  edited. 

Valerius  thought  it  useless  to  publish  the  compendium  of  Theodorus  in 
his  edition  of  the  Greek  Church-historians  (Paris,  1673;  §  62,  7);  he  me- 
rely inserted  variant  readings  therefrom  in  his  notes  to  Socrates'  text;  the 
excerpts  from  the  other  work  were  printed  by  him  after  the  fragments  of 
Philostorgius  [Migne,  PG.,  lxxxvi  1,  165 — 228,  from  Valesius- Reading,  Cam- 
bridge, 1730).  For  the  manuscripts  and  the  antiquity  of  the  excerpts  see 
C.  de  Boor,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  Kirchengesch.  (1883— 1884),  vi.  489 — 491;  Id., 
Zu  Theodorus  Lektor  (ib.,  ii.  23):  Migne }  1.  c,  lxxxvi  1,  573 — 577.  We 
owe  some  new  excerpts  to  quotations  made  by  Nicetas,  Chartophylax  of 
Nicaea;  cf.  Fr.  Diekamp ,  in  Hist.  Jahrb.  (1903),  xxiv.  553—558.  Nolle, 
Zu  Theodorus  Lector  und  Eustathios  von  Epiphania  nebst  einem  noch  un- 
gedruckten Bruchstücke  des  letzteren,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1861),  xliii. 
569 — 582.  Eustathius  of  Epiphania  in  Syria  was  the  author  of  a  (lost) 
chronicle,  that  was  one  of  the  sources  of  Theodorus  Lector,  and  reached 
from  the  earliest  times  to  502.  J.  V.  Sarrazin,  De  Theodoro  Lectore 
Theophanis  fonte  praecipuo,  in  Commentationes  philologae  Jenenses,  Leipzig, 
1881,  i.  163—238.  For  the  chronicler  Theophanes  Confessor  (f  ca.  817) 
cf.  Krumbacher,  Gesch.  der  byzant.  Lit.,  2.  ed.,  pp.  342  ff. 

2.  ZACHARIAS   RHETOR.    —    Zacharias    was    originally    a    lawyer 
ayoXaoTizoQ,  rhetor)  of  Berytus  in  Phoenicia.     At  a  later  date,    cer- 


§    1 03.      HISTORIANS    AND    GEOGRAPHERS.  553 

tainly  after  536,  he  was  bishop  of  Mitylene  in  Lesbos  (not  Melitene 
in  Armenia  Minor).  His  death  must  have  taken  place  before  553. 
While  still  a  lawyer,  shortly  after  491,  he  composed  a  work  on  ec- 
clesiastical history  that  covered  the  period  from  450  to  491,  but 
treated  chiefly  of  matters  personal  to  the  author  at  Alexandria  and 
in  Palestine.  The  original  Greek  text  has  perished,  but  the  wrork 
survives  in  the  twelve  books  of  an  anonymous  general  history  in 
Syriac  that  begins  at  the  creation  of  the  world  and  reaches  the 
years  568 — 569.  The  books  iii — vi  of  this  work  are  a  Syriac  recension 
of  the  history  of  Zacharias.  Zacharias  wrote  also  at  Constantinople, 
about  551,  a  life  of  Severus  (§  102,  2),  the  Monophysite  patriarch 
of  Antioch,  and  a  life  of  the  hermit  Isaias  (§  64,  5),  both  of  which 
are  extant  only  in  Syriac  versions.  In  these  writings  there  is  certain 
and  frequent  evidence  that  the  author  was  a  Monophysite.  On  the 
other  hand,  at  the  Synod  of  Constantinople  in  536,  he  voted  as 
bishop  of  Mitylene  for  .the  deposition  of  Anthimus,  Monophysite 
patriarch  of  Constantinople1.  He  was  probably  a  young  man  when 
he  composed  the  dialogue  «Ammonius»  still  extant  in  Greek,  and 
so  called  from  the  Neoplatonist  Ammonius  Hermiae,  who  resided  in 
Alexandria  about  500,  and  whose  teaching  concerning  the  eternity 
of  matter  is  opposed  by  Zacharias  in  this  dialogue. 

The  Syriac  universal  history  was  edited  by  J.  P.  N.  Land,  Anecdota 
Syriaca  iii,  Leyden,  1870.  This  edition  could  be  improved.  Some 
chapters  of  several  books  of  this  compilation  had  already  been  edited  (in 
Syriac  and  Latin)  by  Mai  (Script,  vet.  nova  Coll.,  Rome,  1838,  x  1,  332 
to  388;  cf.  xii — xiv;  the  Latin  version  is  reprinted  in  Migne,  PG.,  lxxxv. 
1 145 — 1 178).  The  greater  part  of  the  entire  compilation  was  edited  and 
translated  into  German  by  K.  Ahrens  and  G.  Krüger ,  Die  sog.  Kirchen- 
geschichte des  Zacharias  Rhetor,  Leipzig,  1899  (Scriptores  sacri  et  pro- 
fani  iii).  Similarly,  the  greater  part  of  the  compilation  appeared  in  an 
English  translation  by  F.  J.  Hamilton  and  E.  W.  Brooks,  London,  1899. 
Both  versions,  especially  the  German,  are  criticized  by  M.  A.  Kugener, 
in  Revue  de  l'Orient  ehret.  (1900),  v.  201 — 214  461—480.  The  life  of 
Isaias  is  also  in  Syriac,  in  Land ,  1.  c,  pp.  346 — 356,  and  in  German  in 
the  work  of  Ahrens  and  Krüger,  1.  c,  pp.  263 — 274.  Cf.  M.  A.  Kugener, 
Observations  sur  la  vie  de  l'ascete  Isaias  et  sur  les  vies  de  Pierre  l'lberien 
et  de  Theodore  d'Antinoe  par  Zacharie  le  scholastique ,  in  Byzant.  Zeit- 
schrift (1900),  ix.  464 — 470.  For  the  life  and  works  of  Severus  see  §  102,  2. 
Migne  (1.  c. ,  lxxxv.  ion — 1044)  reproduces  the  dialogue  «i\.mmonius» 
(Disputatio  de  mundi  opificio)  from  the  edition  of  C.  Barth,  Leipzig,  1654. 
J.  Fr.  Boissonade  edited  it  anew,  Paris,  1836.  The  fragment  of  the  work 
against  the  Manichasans  is  printed  in  Latin  by  Migne,  1.  c,  lxxxv.  1143 
to  1 144,  and  in  Greek  by  Pitra,  Analecta  sacra  et  classica,  Paris,  1888, 
i.  67 — 70.  —  The  Church-history  of  the  Nestorian  priest  of  Antioch, 
Basilius  Cilix  (of  Cilicia)  has  perished ,  like  all  the  other  writings  of  the 
same  author.  Photius  says  (Bibl.  Cod.  42)  that  it  began  with  the  emperor 
Marcian  and  came  down  to  the  death  of  Justin  I.  (527).  Cf.  Fabricius* 
Hartes,  Bibl.  gr.  vii.  419  t042o;  x.  692   710. 

1  Mansi,  SS.  Cone.  Coll.,  viii.  926  933  975   976. 


554 


THIRD    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 


3.  EVAGRIUS  SCHOLASTICUS.  —  The  writings  of  Evagrius  are 
much  more  important  than  those  of  Theodorus  and  Zacharias.  He 
was  born  at  Epiphania  in  Syria,  in  536  or  537,  and  lived  as  a 
lawyer,  ayoAaaztxaQ,  at  a  later  period  in  Antioch.  When  Gregory, 
patriarch  of  Antioch,  was  called  to  Constantinople  in  588  to  account 
for  his  conduct,  Evagrius  accompanied  his  bishop  and  defended  him 
before  the  emperor  and  the  synod,  with  the  address  of  a  skilful 
lawyer  and  the  zeal  of  a  faithful  friend.  He  was  made  quaestor  by 
the  emperor  Tiberius  II.  (578 — 582),  and  honorary  prefect  {dnb 
Z7zo.pyiov,  ex  praefectis)  by  the  emperor  Mauricius.  He  died  at  Antioch 
towards  the  end  of  the  sixth  century.  His  Church-history,  though 
comprehensive,  touches  too  often  and  too  extensively  on  political 
history.  In  the  preface  the  author  describes  it  as  a  continuation  of 
the  histories  of  Socrates,  Sozomen  and  Theodoret.  Its  six  books 
cover  the  period  from  431  to  594.  The  narrative  is  based  on  the 
most  reliable  authorities,  and  gives  evidence  of  whole-souled  devotion 
to  the  truth  and  of  sincerely  orthodox  faith.  Here  and  there  he 
exhibits  an  excessive  credulity  and  a  fondness  for  the  miraculous. 
The  diction  of  Evagrius  has  been  declared  by  Photius 1  to  be  grace- 
ful, though  somewhat  prolix.  It  is  to  him  that  we  owe,  in  large 
measure,  our  knowledge  of  the  development  of  Nestorianism  and 
Monophysitism.  He  wrote  another  work  that  seems  to  have  perish- 
ed. According  to  himself2  it  contained  «reports,  letters,  edicts,  dis- 
courses, dialogues,  and  other  things».  The  «reports»  (ava<popai) 
were  drawn  up  by  him  mostly  by  order  and  in  the  name  of  the 
patriarch  Gregory.  Among  the  «discourses»  (Xoyot)  was  doubtless 
the  congratulatory  address  to  emperor  Mauricius  on  the  birth  of  his 
son  Theodosius.  Evagrius  seems  to  have  projected  a  monograph  on 
the  Persian  campaigns  of  Mauricius3,  but  he  never  executed  the  work. 

The  editio  princeps  of  Evagrius  is  owing  to  H.  Valesius,  Paris,  1673 
(§  86,  7).  It  is  reprinted  in  Migne,  PG.,  lxxxvi  2,  2415 — 2886,  from 
Valesius- Reading,  Cambridge,  1720.  There  is  a  new  and  excellent  edition 
by  J.  Bidez  and  L.  Parmentier ,  London,  1899  (Byzantine  texts,  ed.  by 
y.  B.  Bury).  In  his  Gesch.  der  byzant.  Lit.,  2.  ed.,  pp.  246  f.,  Krum- 
bacher quotes  the  latest  and  best  works  concerning  the  ecclesiastical  history 
of  Evagrius.  —  There  are  extant  four  sermons  of  the  above-mentioned 
patriarch  Gregory  of  Antioch  (570—593;  cf.  §  107,  1).  They  may  be 
found  in  Migne,  PG.,  lxxxviii.  1847— 1866.  The  second  is  known  to  us 
only  in  a  Latin  version.  Cf.  S.  Haidacher ,  Zu  den  Homilien  des  Gre- 
gorys von  Antiochia  und  des  Gregorius  Thaumaturgus,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  kath. 
Theol.  (1901),  xxv.  367 — 369. 

4.  CHRONICLERS.  —  The  universal  history  of  Hesychius  of  Miletus, 
written  about  the  middle  of  the  sixth  century;  the  popular  universal 
chronicle  of  John  Malalas  of  Antioch,  written  in  the  second  half 
of  the  same  century,  and  the  chronicle  of  John  of  Antioch,  written 

1  Bibl.  Cod.  29.  2  Hist,  eccl.,  vi.  24.  ^  Ib     v    20 


§    103.     HISTORIANS   AND    GEOGRAPHERS.  555 

at  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  century,  do  not  come  within  the 
scope  of  this  work.  To  the  first  half  of  the  seventh  century  belongs 
a  diffuse  chronological  compilation,  that  began  with  the  creation, 
and  is  usually  known  as  the  Paschal  Chronicle,  Chronicon  Paschale, 
because  it  bases  Christian  chronology  on  the  paschal  cycle.  The 
unknown  author  was  probably  an  ecclesiastic  of  Constantinople  in 
the  service  or  entourage  of  the  patriarch  Sergius  (610 — 638).  His 
chronological  framework  of  ancient  history  is  mostly  constructed 
from  Julius  Africanus  and  Eusebius,  and  is  adorned  with  a  number 
of  miscellaneous  historical  notices  and  statements  that  become  reliable 
in  proportion  as  the  author  approches  his  own  time,  i.  e.  the  first 
decade  of  the  seventh  century.  About  the  year  700,  John,  Mono- 
physite  bishop  of  Nikiu,  an  island  in  the  main  Western  branch  of 
the  Nile,  wrote  a  universal  chronicle.  Though  written  from  a  Mono- 
physite  standpoint,  it  contains  copious  materials  for  ecclesiastical 
history;  for  the  history  of  the  seventh  century,  at  least,  it  is  an 
authority  at  once  independent  and  excellent.  It  has  reached  us  in 
an  ethiopic  (Amhara)  translation,  made  in  1601  in  Abyssinia  from 
a  very  imperfect  copy  of  an  Arabic  translation.  Zotenberg,  who 
edited  and  translated  the  Ethiopic  text,  is  of  opinion  that  the  work 
was  originally  composed  in  Greek,  though  some  sections  of  it  were 
written  in  Coptic;  Nöldeke  thinks  it  more  probable  that  the  entire 
work  was  written  in  Coptic. 

On  Hesychius  of  Miletus,  John  Malalas  [Migne,  PG.,  xcvii)  and  John 
of  Antioch  cf.  Krumbacher,  Gesch.  der  byzant.  Lit.,  2.  ed.,  pp.  323  ff.  — 
The  editio  princeps  of  the  Chronicon  Paschale  was  prepared  by  L.  Din- 
dorf,  Bonn,  1832,  2  vols.  (Corpus  scriptorum  hist.  Byzant.).  It  is  reprinted 
in  Migne,  PG.,  xcii.  Cf.  H.  Gelzer,  Sextus  Julius  Africanus,  Leipzig,  1885, 
ii  1,  138—176,  and  Krumbacher,  1.  c,  p.  339;  also  F.  C.  Conybeare ,  in 
Journal  of  Theological  Studies  (1901 — 1902),  ii.  288 — 298,  and  in  Byzant. 
Zeitschr.  (1902)^  xi.  395 — 405.  G.  Mercati,  A  Study  of  the  Paschal  Chro- 
nicle, in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1906),  vii.  397 — 412.  —  La  Chronique 
de  Jean,  eveque  de  Nikiou.  Notice  et  extraits  par  M.  H.  Zotenberg,  Paris, 
1879  (Journal  asiatique  1877,  n.  15).  Cf.  Th.  Nöldeke,  in  Gott.  Gel.  An- 
zeigen (1881),  pp.587 — 594.  Chronique  de  Jean,  eveque  de  Nikiou.  Texte 
ethiopien  public  et  traduit  par  H.  Zotenberg,  Paris,  1883  (Notices  des 
Manuscrits  xxiv.  1).  Cf.  Nöldeke,  in  Gott.  Gel.  Anzeigen  (1883),  pp.  1364 
to  1374. 

5.  COSMAS  INDICOPLEUSTES.  —  Cosmas,  surnamed  «the  Indian 
traveller»  (o  'fadixozAsuazrjQ),  was  an  Alexandrine  merchant  who  under- 
took about  the  year  520  long  commercial  voyages,  particularly  through 
Arabia  and  Eastern  Africa.  On  his  return  to  Egypt  he  became  a  monk 
and  devoted  a  great  deal  of  his  time  to  various  literary  labors,  only 
one  of  which  has  reached  us:  his  Christian  Topography  (yptauavr/^ 
ro-oypoxpia)1,  composed  about  547,  in  twelve  books,  the  last  of  which 

1  Migne,  PC,  lxxxviii.   51—470. 


556  THIRD    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

exists  only  in  fragments.  There  are  also  extant,  under  the  name  of 
Cosmas,  some  fragments  on  the  Psalms.  Three  other  large  works,  to 
which  he  occasionally  refers  in  the  Topography,  have  perished:  a 
Cosmography  «in  which  the  whole  world  was  described,  both  on  this 
side  of  the  ocean  and  on  the  other»1,  astronomical  tables2,  and  an 
«interpretation  of  the  Canticle  of  canticles 3.  The  Christian  Topography 
merits  attention  for  several  reasons,  in  spite  of  the  many  singular 
and  fantastic  ideas  of  its  author.  In  seeming  harmony  with  scriptural 
phraseology,  he  imagines  the  world  to  be  a  great  rectangular  space 
surrounded  on  all  sides  by  walls  that  gradually  approach  one  an- 
other, and  by  their  meeting  form  the  celestial  vault.  In  the  first 
book  he  vigorously  opposes  the  theory  of  the  rotundity  of  the  earth ; 
in  the  second  book  he  develops  his  own  theories,  while  in  the  third 
and  fourth  books  he  alleges  scriptural  proofs  in  favor  of  the  same. 
The  fifth  book  is  important  for  the  history  of  Biblical  Introduction: 
it  contains  information  on  the  authors,  scope,  and  contents  of  the 
biblical  books.  In  exegesis,  hermeneutics  and  biblical  theology  Cosmas 
follows  the  guidance  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia.  His  account4  of 
the  «great  island  in  the  Indian  Ocean  called  Sielediva  by  the  Indians, 
and  by  the  Greeks  Taprobane»  i.  e.  the  island  of  Ceylon,  possessed 
great  attraction  for  mediaeval  readers. 

The  first  edition  of  the  Christian  Topography  was  made  from  a 
seventh-century  Vatican  manuscript  by  B.  de  Montfaucon,  Collectio  nova 
Patr.  et  Script,  graec,  Paris,  1706,  ii.  113  fif.  The  pictures  with  which 
Cosmas  illustrated  his  work  were  reproduced  (with  a  commentary)  from 
the  same  manuscript  by  P.  R.  Garrucci,  Storia  della  arte  cristiana  (Prato, 
1876),  iii.  70  —  83,  tables  142—153.  The  great  importance  of  this  manu- 
script for  the  history  of  Byzantine  art  is  brought  out  by  N.  Kondakoff, 
Histoire  de  l'art  byzantin,  Paris,  1886— 189 1,  i.  136— 151.  Cf.  J.  Strzy- 
goivski,  Der  Bilderkreis  des  griechischen  Physiologus,  des  Kosmas  Indico- 
pleustes  und  Oktateuch  nach  Handschriften  der  Bibliothek  zu  Smyrna 
(Byzant.  Archiv,  fasc.  ii),  Leipzig,  1899.  The  account  given  by  Cosmas 
of  the  monument  of  Aduli  (now  Zulla,  somewhat  south  of  Massaua  in 
Abyssinia)  and  its  historically  very  important  inscriptions  was  edited  anew 
by  de  Lagarde,  in  Nachrichten  von  der  k.  Gesellschaft  der  Wissensch.  zu 
Cöttingen  (1890),  pp.  418 — 448;  see  also  the  dissertation  of  de  Lagarde, 
in  the  Abhandlungen  of  the  same  society  (1891),  xxxvii,  «Register  und 
Nachträge»,  pp.  69—75.  An  English  version  of  the  Christian  Topography 
was  published  by  J.  W.  McCrindle,  London,  1897.  On  Cosmas  in  general 
and  his  works  see  H.  Geizer ,  Kosmas  der  Indienfahrer,  in  Jahrb.  für 
protest.  Theol.  (1883),  ix.  105— 141.  E.  O.  Winstedt,  Notes  from  Cosmas 
Indicopleustes,  in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1905),  vi.  282—285.  E.  Mangenot, 
in  Diet,  de  Theologie,  Paris,  1908,  iii.  1916— 1917.  Other  literature  con- 
cerning the  cosmological  ideas  of  Cosmas  may  be  found  in  Krumbacher; 
1.  c,  p.  414.  For  the  fragments  on  the  Psalms  see  Fabricius- Hartes,  Bibl. 
gr.,  iv.  261—262  (=  Migne,  PG.,  lxxxviii.  27  —  28). 

1  Lib.   1,  col.  53A.  2  I}  53B.  ct  7)  34oB  3  8    388B> 

4  II,  445  ff. 


§    104.      HAGIOGRAPHERS.  557 

6.  NOTITIAE  EPISCOPATUUM.  —  Under  this  heading  come  certain 
statistics  of  the  Greek  Church,  known  specifically  as  raxuxd.  They 
are  catalogues  of  the  patriarchal  sees  and  of  the  metropolitan  sees 
subject  to  them,  together  with  the  autocephalous  archiepiscopal  sees, 
likewise  the  metropolitan  sees  and  of  the  episcopal  churches  subject 
to  the  metropolitans.  These  lists  of  episcopal  sees  were  originally 
drawn  up  for  administrative  purposes,  and  as  they  were  variously 
modified  in  the  course  of  time,  it  has  become  difficult  to  fix  the 
original  date  of  their  compilation.  Some  of  these  «notitiae»  certainly 
belong  to  the  patristic  age. 

In  the  work  of  G.  Parthey,  Hieroclis  Synecdemus  et  Notitiae  graecae 
episcopatuum,  Berlin,  1866,  pp.  53 — 261,  the  reader  will  find  a  statistical 
description  of  the  Eastern  Empire  previous  to  535 ;  it  contains  thirteen 
episcopal  catalogues  as  described  above.  The  Synecdemus  of  the  gram- 
marian Hierocles  was  edited  again,  from  new  manuscripts,  by  A.  Burck- 
hardt,  Leipzig,  1893.  As  to  the  date  of  the  Notitiae  cf.  H.  Gelzer ,  in 
Jahrb.  f.  protest.  Theol.  (1886),  xii.  337 — 372  529 — 575.  The  results  of 
his  investigations  were  verified  and  completed  by  C.  de  Boor,  in  Zeitschr. 
f.  Kirchengesch.  (1890 — 1891),  xii.  303 — 322  519—534;  (1893 — 1894),  xiv. 
573 — 599.  In  vol.  xii  (pp.  519 — 534)  de  Boor  made  known  a  hitherto  un- 
discovered Notitia  of  the  beginning  of  the  eighth  century.  In  the  mean- 
time Gelzer  had  republished  the  Notitia  Ia  of  Parthey  (pp.  55 — 94),  and 
demonstrated  that  only  its  first  part  was  of  ecclesiastical  origin,  while  the 
second  part  (530 — 1064,  Parthey)  is  a  description  of  the  Roman  Empire 
composed  early  in  the  seventh  century  by  an  otherwise  unknown  George 
of  Lapathus  in  Cyprus:  Georgii  Cyprii  Descriptio  orbis  Romani,  ed. 
H.  Gelzer,  Leipzig,  1890.  For  further  information  concerning  manuscripts 
of  the  Notitiae  episcopatuum  see  Gelzer ,  Analecta  Byzantina,  in  Index 
scholarum  Jenens.  per  sem.  hib.  1891  — 1892;  cf.  Id. ,  Ungedruckte  und 
wenig  bekannte  Bistümerverzeichnisse  der  orientalischen  Kirche,  in  Byzant. 
Zeitschr.  (1893),  ii.  22 — 72;  Id.,  Ungedruckte  und  ungenügend  veröffent- 
lichte Texte  der  Notitiae  Episcopatuum.  Ein  Beitrag  zur  byzantinischen 
Kirchen-  und  Verwaltungsgeschichte,  Munich,  1901,  in  Abhandl.  der  kgl. 
bayer.  Akad.  der  Wissensch.  For  the  use  made  by  Epiphanius  of  these 
historical  sources  cf.  Fr.  N.  Finck ,  Des  Epiphanios  von  Cypern  Ixoean? 
-pwTo/Xrjjttüv  7:a-ptapywv  ts  xal  {ASTpo-oXirojv ,  armenisch  und  griechisch 
herausgegeben  von  Fr.  N.  Finck,  Marburg,  1902. 

§  104.    Hagiographers. 

1.  CYRIL  OF  SCYTHOPOLIS.  —  Cyril  was  born  at  Scythopolis, 
the  ancient  Bethsan 1  in  Galilee,  and  was  still  a  child  when  in  the 
winter  of  531 — 532  he  became  acquainted  with  Sabas,  the  famous 
hermit- abbot.  This  event  was  destined  to  affect  his  future;  at  the 
age  of  twenty  he  bade  adieu  (543)  to  his  native  town  and  began 
to  live  the  pious  life  of  the  desert.  The  following  year  (544)  he 
entered  the  monastery  of  St.  Euthymius,  by  the  advice  of  St.  John 
the  Hermit  (Hesychastes,  Silentiarius).    In   555   he  appears  among  the 

1  Ios.   xvii.    1 1. 


CC$  THIRD    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

one  hundred  and  twenty  orthodox  monks  who  occupied  the  New 
Laura  near  Jerusalem,  after  the  violent  expulsion  of  the  Origenistic 
monks  by  Anastasius,  dux  Palaestinae.  In  557  he  built  for  himself 
a  cell  in  the  great  Laura  of  St.  Sabas,  also  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Jerusalem.  It  was  probably  there  that,  soon  afterwards,  he  passed 
away.  Cyril  was  always  deeply  interested  in  the  lives  and  deeds 
of  the  great  models  of  the  ascetic  life,  and,  from  the  time  of  his 
entrance  into  the  monastery  of  St.  Euthymius,  had  been  a  diligent 
and  critical  gatherer  of  bibliographical  information,  especially  con- 
cerning St.  Euthymius  (f  473)  one  of  the  chief  organizers  of  mona- 
sticism  in  Palestine,  and  St.  Sabas  (f  532).  Before  his  entrance  into 
the  great  Laura,  he  had  been  encouraged  by  his  friend  George, 
abbot  of  Beella  near  Scythopolis,  to  compose  lives  of  the  afore-said 
hermit-monks.  The  work  soon  assumed  a  broader  character.  In  the 
life  of  St.  Sabas  (c.  21)  he  refers  to  a  life  of  St.  John  the  Hermit 
(t  55*0  that  he  means  to  write;  he  begins  this  third  and  shorter 
biography  with  the  words:  «The  first  place  in  my  narrative  I  assign 
to  the  abbot  John» :  npcozov  npozc^/xi  reo  Xoyw  zbv  dßßäv  '[cudvvyv, 
whence  it  is  evident  that  he  intended  to  execute  a  series  of  these 
shorter  biographies.  Cyril  must  have  met  with  some  obstacle  to 
the  fulfilment  of  his  purpose,  for  (apparently)  only  three  other  bio- 
graphies are  extant  under  his  name.  Moreover,  they  have  reached 
us  separately,  and  not  in  a  collection  headed  by  the  life  of  St.  John 
the  Hermit;  they  are  entitled:  a  life  of  the  abbot  Cyriacus  (f  $56); 
a  life  of  St.  Theodosius,  founder  of  a  monastery  of  the  same  name 
(t  5 29) ;  a  life  of  St.  Theognius  (f  522).  Theognius  had  lived  forty 
years  among  the  monks  of  Palestine  when  he  was  made  bishop  of 
Betelia,  near  Gaza  (494).  Cyril  devotes  but  a  few  pages  to  Theo- 
dosius and  Theognius.  There  existed  already  a  long  panegyric  of 
Theodosius,  delivered  by  the  monk  Theodorus,  probably  about  530 
in  the  Saint's  own  monastery,  but  completed  and  published  about 
547 ;  Theodorus  eventually  became  bishop  of  Petra.  A  funeral 
discourse  on  St.  Theognius  was  also  published  about  526  by  Paul, 
abbot  of  Elusa  in  Idumaea.  Hence,  Cyril  was  content  to  furnish  a 
concise  sketch  of  Theodosius  and  Theognius,  exercising  at  the  same 
time  a  covert  but  modest  critique  of  his  predecessor's  narratives. 
Theodore  and  Paul  are  panegyrists ;  Cyril  is  an  historian.  Though  he 
is  not  free  from  the  contemporary  predilection  for  the  miraculous, 
he  writes  as  one  sincerely  desirous  of  arriving  at  the  truth;  he 
spares  no  labor  in  the  pursuit  of  reliable  knowledge,  and  strives 
earnestly  to  correct  and  complete  the  information  he  has  collected; 
he  is,  in  a  particular  way,  minutely  solicitous  concerning  the  accuracy 
of  his  chronological  data.  His  works  are  an  authority  of  the  highest 
order  on  the  history  of  the  Holy  Land  and  the  Church  of  Jerusalem 
in  the  fifth  and  sixth  centuries. 


§    I04.      HAGIOGRAPHERS.  559 

The  Vita  S.  Euthymii  was  edited  by  B.  de  Montfaucon ,  in  the  Bene- 
dictine Analecta  Graeca,  Paris,  1688,  i.  1  —  99;  the  Vita  S.  Sabae  by  J.  B. 
Cotelerius,  Ecclesiae  Graecae  monumenta,  Paris,  1686,  iii.  220 — 376,  and 
N.  Pomjalovskij,  St.  Petersburg,  1900  (Russian),  who  added  an  Old- Slavonic 
version.  On  the  Vita  S.  Sabae  cf.  Fr.  Diekamp ,  Die  origenist.  Streitig- 
keiten im  6.  Jahrhundert,  Münster,  1899,  pp.  5  ff.  The  Vita  S.  Ioannis 
Silentiarii  was  published  by  the  Bollandists,  Acta  SS.  Maii  (iii),  16* — 21*; 
in  Latin,  pp.  232 — 238.  The  Vita  S.  Cyriaci  is  in  Acta  SS.  Sept.  (viii), 
147  — 159.  In  Echos  d'Orient  (1901),  iv.  282  f.,  S.  Putrides  attributes  to 
this  Cyriacus  a  hymn  on  Lazarus,  the  complete  text  of  which  has  been 
edited  by  K.  Krumbacher,  Romanos  und  Kyriakos,  Munich,  1901 ,  a  re- 
print from  the  Sitzungsberichte  of  the  Munich  Academy.  The  two  Vitae 
S.  Theodosii,  by  Theodorus  and  by  Cyril,  were  published  by  H.  Usener,  in 
two  university-dissertations  (Bonn,  1890),  and  again  in:  Der  hl.  Theodosios, 
Leipzig,  1890.  Cf.  Krumbacher,  Studien  zu  den  Legenden  des  hl.  Theo- 
dosios, in  Sitzungsberichte  der  philos.-philol.  und  histor.  Klasse  der  kgl. 
bayer.  Akad.  der  Wissensch.  (1892),  pp.  220 — 379.  Krumbacher  has 
shown,  with  the  aid  of  considerable  manuscript  evidence,  that  the  edition 
of  Usener  lacks  a  suitable  foundation,  being  based  on  a  single  manuscript, 
and  that  of  the  eleventh  century.  The  two  Vitae  S.  Theognii,  by  Paul  and 
by  Cyril,  were  edited  in  the  Analecta  Bollandiana  (1891),  x.  73 — 118,  and 
contemporaneously  by  A.  Papadopulos-Kerameus ,  Petersburg,  1891  (Russian). 
Cf.  J.  van  den  Gheyn ,  St.  Theognius,  in  Revue  des  questions  historiques 
(1891),  1.  559 — 576.  In  'AvaXsx-a  ispoaoAUfJurtxT)«  j-ayuoAo'/i«?  (1897),  iv. 
175 — 184,  Papadopulos-Kerameus  published  a  Vita  S.  Gerasimi,  that  is  pro- 
bably also  the  work  of  Cyril  of  Scythopolis.  Cf.  S.  Vailhe,  Diet,  de  Theo- 
logie, Paris,   1908,  iii.   2581 — 2582. 

2.  JOHANNES  MOSCHUS  AND  SOPHRONIUS.  —  Narratives  like  those 
of  Cyril  of  Scythopolis  became  so  popular,  particularly  among  the 
monks,  that  there  grew  up  a  species  of  ecclesiastical  literature  that 
may  be  described  as  «Monastic  Memorials».  The  best-known  speci- 
mens of  such  writings  are  the  Historia  Lausiaca  of  Palladius  (§  79,  4) 
and  the  Pratum  spirituale  of  Johannes  Moschus.  The  latter  was  a 
writer  of  the  end  of  the  sixth  century.  Wearied  of  the  world,  as  we 
read  in  an  ancient  anonymous  account,  John  retired  to  the  monastery 
of  St.  Theodosius  at  Jerusalem,  whence  he  went  at  a  later  date  to 
the  monks  who  dwelt  beside  the  Jordan  and  in  the  New  Laura. 
He  also  travelled  through  Syria,  Egypt  and  Italy.  Shortly  before 
his  death,  which  took  place  at  Rome  in  619,  he  composed  a  long 
account  of  the  extraordinary  virtues  and  miracles  of  contemporary 
ascetics.  His  information  was  drawn  partly  from  his  personal  ex- 
perience, and  partly  from  oral  and  written  communications  of  con- 
temporaries. He  dedicated  the  work  to  his  disciple  and  companion 
Sophronius,  and  called  it  «The  Meadow»  (le.ip.wv,  Pratum  spirituale), 
because,  as  the  manuscripts  add  and  the  dedication  attests,  «it  öfters 
a  flowery  narrative  of  the  life  of  the  heavenly  rose  garden».  In  the 
course  of  time,  as  often  happens  to  much  used  books  of  devotion,  the 
text  underwent  many  alterations,  was  either  compressed  into  «com- 
pendia», or  considerably  amplified.     Photius   says1   that   in  some  of 

1  Bibl.  Cod.  199. 


-go  THIRD   PERIOD.      FIRST    SECTION. 

the  manuscript  copies  he  had  read,  there  were  304  chapters,  while 
other  copies  contained  342  chapters  or  narratives ;  the  printed  editions 
exhibit  219  chapters.  In  collaboration  with  Sophronius,  Moschus 
wrote  a  life  of  John  the  Almoner  (i'h^fiiwi,  eleemosynarius),  patri- 
arch of  Alexandria  (610—619),  with  whom  both  writers  had  long 
kept  up  friendly  intercourse.  A  fragment  of  this  biography  is  still 
extant  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  Vita  S.  Ioannis  Eleemosynarii, 
current  under  the  name  of  Simeon  Metaphrastes.  —  The  above- 
mentioned  Sophronius  was  for  several  decades  a  monk  of  the  mona- 
stery of  St.  Theodosius  and  as  such  was  distinguished  for  knowledge, 
piety  and  zeal.  In  634  he  was  made  patriarch  of  Jerusalem  and  occupied 
the  see  for  four  stormy  and  troublous  years  (f  638).  He  owes  his 
literary  reputation  chiefly  to  his  homilies  and  hymns  (§  105,  3).  He 
also  composed  some  biographies,  a  full  account  of  the  lives  of  Saints 
Cyrus  and  John,  and  a  life  of  St.  Mary  of  Egypt.  Cyrus  and  John 
had  suffered  martyrdom  under  Diocletian  at  Alexandria  and  were 
held  in  high  honor  throughout  Egypt.  In  the  first  part  of  his  work 
Sophronius  relates  the  lives  and  sufferings  of  both  Saints,  their  burial 
and  the  subsequent  translation  of  their  relics ;  in  the  second  part  he 
describes  seventy  miracles  performed  through  their  intercession,  the 
last  of  these  haufiara  being  his  own  delivery  from  the  danger  of 
loss  of  sight.  St.  Mary  of  Egypt  is  thought  by  some  to  have  lived 
in  the  fourth  century,  but  by  others  in  the  fifth  or  the  sixth;  she 
had  led  a  sinful  life  at  Alexandria,  but  was  struck  by  a  ray  of  di- 
vine grace  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  and  thenceforth,  for  forty-eight 
years,  led  a  life  of  penance  in  the  desert  east  of  the  Jordan. 

The  above-mentioned  Vita  S.  Joannis  Moschi  precedes  in  several 
manuscripts  and  editions  the  «Pratum  spirituale» ;  thus  in  Magna  Bibl.  vet. 
Patr.,  Paris,  1644,  xiii.  1053— 1055.  There  is  a  Latin  version  in  Migne, 
PL.,  lxxiv.  119— 122.  An  Italian  translation  was  printed  at  Venice  as  early 
as  1475,  and  again  at  Vicenza,  in  1479;  the  translation  was  made  from 
the  Latin  version  of  Ambrogio  Camaldolese  (j  1439).  This  Latin  version  was 
reprinted  at  Venice  1558,  and  often  since,  also  in  Migne,  PL.,  lxxiv.  121 
to  240.  The  Greek  text  was  edited  in  1624  by  Fronto  Ducaeus ,  com- 
pleted and  corrected  in  1681  by  J.  B.  Cotelier,  reprinted  in  Migne,  PG., 
lxxxvii  3  2851—3112.  For  the  life  of  St.  John  the  Almoner  by  Moschus 
and  Sophronius  see  H.  Geher,  in  his  edition  of  the  Vita  S.  Joannis  Elee- 
mosynarii by  Leontius  of  Naples  (see  no.  3),  Freiburg  and  Leipzig,   1893, 

PP'^V_ XX1Ll  e  Sa™e  Vlta'  under  the  name  of  Simeon  Metaphrastes,  is 
wMgne  PG  cxiv.  895-966.  S.  Vailhi ,  St.  Jean  Mosch,  in  Echos 
d  Orient  (1901),  v.  107- 1 16  356-387.  -  The  most  complete  edition  of 
rnLTi8  CUrrem  ,Under,theJ  name  0f  SoPhronius  is  that  of  Cardinal  Mai; 
most  of  them  were  first  edited  by  him;  they  are  also  in  Migne,  PG.,  lxxxvii 
»JÄ1~4°a1£  h7eS  °f  Cyrus   and  J°hn  Wigne,   1.  c,  3379-3676) 

lit  Te  1  Sy  tW°  °ther  fh°rt  Vitae  °f  the  mWrs  lb.  lxxxvii  93677  to 
Ätii  /i  I1  m™™&  attrib,uted  t0  Sophronius.  The  Vita  S.  Mariae 
67i-P6o0    (£' AT™'  3697-3726)   is  also  in  Latin  in  Migne,  PL.,  Ixxiii. 

^Äd^ojrn^:!)6  sfnt: Marie  ^rne' 

v  y««;,   iv.    35     42,   (1901),   vi.  15—17.     An  Ethiopic 


§    I04.      HAGIOGRAPHERS.  56 1 

version  of  the  life  was  published  by  F.  M.  Esteras  Pereira,  Lisbon,  1903. 
For  the  other  writings  of  Sophronius  cf.  §  105,  3 ;  L.  de  Saint- Aignan, 
Vie  de  St.  Sophrone,  patriarche  de  Jerusalem,  m  Acad,  de  Sainte-Croix 
d'Orleans,  Lectures  et  Memoires  (1886),  v.  229 — 244;  Geher,  in  the  above- 
mentioned  edition  of  the  Vita  S.  Joannis  Eleemos.  by  Leontius  (1893), 
pp.  118  f.  S.  Vailhi,  Sophrone  le  sophiste  et  Sophrone  le  patriarche,  in 
Revue  de  l'Orient  chretien  (1902),  vii.  360 — 385 ;  (1903),  viii.  32 — 69. 

3.  LEONTIUS  OF  NAPLES  AND  LEONTIUS  OF  ROME.  —  We  are 
not  informed  as  to  the  life  of  Leontius,  bishop  of  Neapolis  (Nemosia) 
in  Cyprus,  during  the  first  half  of  the  seventh  century.  Several  of 
his  writings,  however,  have  reached  us :  a  biography  of  St.  John  the 
Almoner,  or  chapters  supplementary  to  the  biography  described 
above  (no.  2) ;  a  life  of  the  monk  Simeon  who  became  a  fool 
(zoo  (jalou),  «for  the  love  of  Christ»  ;  some  homilies  and  fragments 
of  a  large  controversial  work  against  the  Jews.  His  life  of  St.  Spiri- 
dion  of  Trimithus,  the  patron  of  Cyprus,  appears  to  have  perished. 
These  biographies,  the  author  expressly  says,  were  written  for  the 
edification  of  the  people.  The  life  of  St.  John  is  founded  on  evidence 
of  the  best  kind,  the  testimony  of  contemporary  persons  and  eye- 
witnesses. Many  items  in  the  life  of  St.  Simeon  serve  to  illustrate 
the  history  of  contemporary  manners  and  institutions.  —  «Leontius, 
priest  and  monk  and  prior  of  the  monastery  of  St.  Saba  at  Rome», 
is  as  he  himself  tells  us  the  name  of  the  author  of  a  Greek  life  of 
St.  Gregory  of  Girgenti  (on  the  south  coast  of  Sicily).  In  the  intro- 
duction to  this  life  the  author  makes  known  that  he  was  a  younger 
contemporary  of  St.  Gregory.  The  latter  wrote  a  copious  commen- 
tary on  Ecclesiastes  in  Greek,  which  is  still  extant;  he  must  have 
been  bishop  of  Girgenti  at  the  end  of  the  sixth  or  at  the  beginning 
of  the  seventh  century. 

The  works  of  Leontius  of  Naples  are  in  Migne,  PG.,  xciii.  1565  ff.  In 
his  Sammlung  ausgew.  kirchen-  und  dogmengeschichtl.  Quellenschriften  (5), 
Freiburg  i.  Br.,  1893,  H.  Geher  edited  the  Greek  text  of  the  Vita  S.  Joannis 
Eleemos.  It  is  in  Migne,  1.  c,  1613 — 1668,  and  also  in  the  Latin  version 
of  Anastasius  Bibliothecarius  (f  about  879)  in  Migne,  PL.,  lxxiii.  337  to 
392.  On  Leontius  and  his  writings  in  general  see  Geher,  Ein  griechischer 
Volksschriftsteller  des  7.  Jahrh. ,  in  Histor.  Zeitschr.,  new  series  (1889), 
xxv.  1—38.  —  The  commentary  of  Gregory  on  Ecclesiastes  was  edited 
by  St.  A.  Morcelli,  Venice,  1791  (Migne,  PG.,  xcviii.  741— 1 182).  Mor- 
celli  added,  as  an  introduction,  the  Greek  text  of  the  life  of  Gregory 
(Ib.,  xcviii.  549—716).  On  Gregory  see  Smith  and  Wace ,  A  Dictionary 
of  Christ.  Biography,  ii.  776—777,  and  on  Leontius  of  Rome,  ib.,  iii. 
692.  —  Eustratius,  a  priest  of  Constantinople,  narrated  in  a  funeral  oration 
[Migne,  PG.,  lxxxvi  2,  2273—2390)  the  life  of  his  master  and  friend  Eu- 
tychius,  patriarch  of  Constantinople  (552—582).  The  latter  left  an  in- 
complete Sermo  de  paschate  et  de  sacrosancta  eucharistia  (Ib.,  lxxxvi.  2391 
to  2402),  and  a  letter  to  Pope  Vigilius  (Ib.,  lxxxvi.  2401—2406).  Eustra- 
tius wrote  also  a  polemical  work  against  the  theory  of  the  «sleep  of  the 
soul»  :  Ä070?  avarps-Tt/o-  -po?  -cole  As'-yovxas  {J-yi  ivsp-fstv  ra;  twv  dvftpw-wv 
^uya?  (JLSTa  tyjv  oiaCsu^iv  ruiv  sauxaiv  ato|iaTu>v  xtX. ;  most  of  it  was  edited  by 
Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  3° 


562 


THIRD    PERIOD.      FIRST   SECTION. 


Leo  Allatius,  De  utriusque  ecclesiae,  occidentalis  atque  orientalis,  perpetua 
in  dogmate  de  purgatorio  consensione,  Rome,  1655,  pp.  319—580  (lacking 
in  Migne).  —  George  IL,  patriarch  of  Alexandria  (621—631),  left  a  Vita 
S  Joannis  Chrysostomi  (Migne,  PG.,  cxiv.  1045— 1210),  that  is  of  little 
value.  —  Nicephorus,  a  rhetorician  of  Antioch,  said  to  have  lived  in 
the  seventh  century,  wrote  a  long  panegyric  of  the  younger  St.  Simeon 
Stylites  (f  596).  It  is  found  in  Migne,  PG.,  lxxxvi  2,  2987—3216.  A  letter 
and  a  fragment  of  another  letter,  written  by  this  Saint,  are  preserved  m 
the  acts  of  the  Seventh  Ecumenical  Council  (787):  Migne,  1.  c,  3215  to 
3220).     Cf.  S.  Pärides,  in  Echos  d'Orient  (1902),  vi.  270—274. 

§  105.    Poets. 

I.  St.  ROMANOS  THE  SINGER.  —  In  the  Greek  Church,  after  the 
fifth  century,  metrical  or  quantitative  versification  steadily  gave  way 
to  a  rhythmic  poetry  that  laid  all  stress  on  accent,  and  paid  no 
attention  to  the  length  of  syllables.  It  soon  came  about  that  the 
ancient  metrical  laws  were  known  and  observed  only  by  men  of 
scholarly  tastes.  The  rhythmic  form  was  much  favored  on  account  of 
the  growing  splendor  of  the  Greek  liturgy  and  it  rapidly  attained 
an  incomparable  perfection.  The  chief  representative  of  the  new 
school,  «the  Pindar  of  rhythmic  poetry»,  is  St.  Romanos,  surnamed 
«the  singer»  (0  pskwdug).  Curiously  enough,  the  period  of  his  life 
cannot  be  determined  with  certainty.  Our  principal  source  of  in- 
formation is  found  in  the  Greek  Menaea,  at  the  feast  (Oct.  1)  of 
the  Saint.  There  he  is  said  to  have  been  born  in  Syria;  he  was 
ordained  deacon,  we  are  told,  at  Berytus,  and  came  to  Constantinople 
under  the  emperor  Anastasius,  and  was  assigned  to  the  service  of 
the  Blachernae  Church.  The  words  ixc  rcov  ypövwv  'Avaazaaiou  zoo 
ßaodiiüQ  may  be  variously  interpreted.  Christ  and  others  decide  in  favor 
of  Anastasius  II.  Artemius  (713—716),  while  Pitra  and  others  prefer 
the  reign  of  Anastasius  I.  (491  —  518).  In  the  first  edition  (1897)  of 
his  history  of  Byzantine  literature,  Krumbacher  was  for  Anastasius  I., 
but  since  then  he  has  declared  (1899)  this  position  to  be  untenable.  De 
Boor  has  lately  (1900)  rallied  to  the  defence  of  the  reign  of  Ana- 
stasius I.,  as  the  epoch  of  the  life  and  work  of  our  Romanos.  The 
chronological  problem  can  be  solved  only  by  a  more  thorough  in- 
vestigation of  the  writings  of  Romanos  and  of  his  models  and  his 
imitators,  if  such  there  be.  The  Men^a  say  (1.  c.)  that  he  composed 
about  one  thousand  hymns:  xovrdxta  coq  jrspl  to.  yiha.  About  eighty 
are  extant,  each  made  up  of  twenty-four  or  more  strophes;  they 
have  been  only  partially  published.  Later  hymnographers  filled  the 
liturgical  books  of  the  Greek  Church  with  their  writings,  and  expelled 
the  works  of  Romanos,  so  that  of  his  vast  repertoire  only  a  few 
strophes  remained  in  ecclesiastical  use.  Nevertheless,  his  glorious 
Christmas  hymn,  rj  Tiap&svoQ  oripzpov,  maintained  its  place,  and  as 
late  as  the  twelfth  century   was   sung   with    great   ceremony   at   the 


§    I05-      POETS.  563 

Christmas-eve  banquet  in  the  imperial  palace.  Modern  scholars  agree 
that  for  poetic  gifts,  glow  of  inspiration,  depth  of  sentiment,  and 
soaring  diction,  Romanos  is  easily  foremost  among  all  the  Greek 
liturgical  poets.  They  regret  but  one  defect,  common  to  all  By- 
zantine literature:  his  rhetorical  prolixity.  Krumbacher  believes  that 
in  the  future  history  of  literature,  Romanos  will  be  proclaimed  the 
greatest  of  all  ecclesiastical  poets. 

Of  fundamental  importance  for  the  study  of  the  history  of  Greek 
hymnography  is  the  Anthologia  graeca  carminum  christianorum.  Adorna- 
verunt  W.  Christ  et  M.  Paranikas,  Leipzig,  1871;  still  more  so  the  Ana- 
lecta  sacra  Spicilegio  Solesmensi  parata,  ed.  J.  B.  Pitra,  torn,  i,  Paris, 
1876.  Pitra  had  already  published  his  Hymnographie  de  l'eglise  grecque, 
Rome,  1867.  On  other  collections  of  Greek  ecclesiastical  hymns  see 
K.  Krumbacher,  Gesch.  der  byzant.  Lit.,  pp.  656  ff . ;  cf.  J.  L.  Jacobi,  Zur 
Geschichte  des  griechischen  Volksliedes,  in  Zeitschr.  für  Kirchengeschichte 
(1881 — 1882),  v.  177 — 250,  a  very  instructive  account  of  the  first  volume 
of  Pitra' s  Analecta  Sacra.  IV.  Meyer,  Anfang  und  Ursprung  der  lateini- 
schen und  griechischen  rhythmischen  Dichtung,  Munich,  1885;  Id. ,  in 
Sitzungsberichte  der  kgl.  bayer.  Akad.  der  Wissensch.,  philos.-philol.  Kl. 
(1896),  pp.  49 — 66,  and  in  Festschrift  zur  Feier  des  hundertfünfzigjährigen 
Bestehens  der  kgl.  Gesellschaft  der  Wissensch.  zu  Göttingen,  Berlin,  1901, 
pp.  146  f.  Edm.  Bouvy ,  Poetes  et  Melodes.  Etude  sur  les  origines  du 
rhythme  tonique  dans  l'hymnographie  de  l'eglise  grecque  (These),  Nimes, 
1886.  F.  Cabrol,  L'hymnographie  de  l'e'glise  grecque,  Angers,  1893.  — 
Among  the  hymnologists  of  the  fifth  century  are:  Anthimus,  Timocles, 
Marcian,  Johannes  Monachus,  Seta,  Auxentius.  It  is  possible  that  in  the 
immense  collection  of  Greek  hymns  by  anonymous  writers,  there  may  be 
many  pieces  belonging  to  the  fifth  century.  In  the  Vita  S.  Auxentii 
(Migne,  PG.,  cxiv.  1377 — 1436),  written  by  a  certain  George,  a  disciple 
of  the  Saint,  there  is  a  hymn  of  St.  Auxentius,  who  was  archimandrite  of 
a  Bithynian  monastery  about  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century ;  cf.  Pitra, 
Analecta  sacra,  i,  pp.  xxi — xxiv;  Bouvy,  1.  C:>  pp.  230 — 234.  A  shorter  life 
was  lately  edited  by  L.  Clugnet,  Vie  de  St.  Auxence,  in  Echos  d'Orient 
(1903),  vii.  1 — 14.  We  have  already  mentioned  (§  102,  4)  a  hymn  of  the 
emperor  Justinian.  —  Christ  and  Paranikas,  1.  c,  pp.  131  — 138,  give  but 
one  hymn  of  St.  Romanos,  that  on  the  Apostles;  cf.  Proleg.,  pp.  li — Hi. 
Pitra,  Analecta  sacra,  i.  1 — 241,  gives  twenty-nine  hymns  of  «the  Singer»  \ 
cf.  Proleg.,  pp.  xxv — xxxi.  In  1888  Pitra  published  three  other  hymns  in 
a  jubilee-offering  to  Leo  XIII. :  Al  Soramo  Pontefice  Leone  XIII.  Omaggio 
Giubilare  della  Biblioteca  Vaticana,  Rome,  1888.  Later  discoveries  are  to  be 
seen  in  Krumbacher,  Studien  zu  Romanos  (Sitzungsberichte  der  kgl.  bayer. 
Akad.),  Munich,  1898;  Umarbeitungen  bei  Romanos  mit  einem  Anhang 
über  das  Zeitalter  des  Romanos  (ib.),  Munich,  1899.  The  conclusions  of 
this  appendix  as  to  the  date  of  Romanos  were  opposed  by  de  Boor,  in 
Byzant.  Zeitschr.  (1900),  ix.  633—640.  Krumbacher  is  preparing  a  com- 
plete edition  of  all  the  extant  writings  of  Romanos.  For  further  infor- 
mation concerning  Romanos  cf.  Jacobi,  1.  c. ,  pp.  203 — 207  220—222; 
Bouvy,  1.  c,  pp.  367—375;  Krumbacher,  Gesch.  der  byzant.  Lit.,  pp.  663 
to  671  ;  Id.,  Romanos  und  Kyriacos  (§  104,  1),  Munich,  1901  (reprint  from 
the  Sitzungsberichte).  S.  Vailhe,  St.  Roman  le  Melode,  in  Echos  d'Orient 
(1902),  v.  207—212  (the  poet  belongs  to  the  eighth  century.  P.  van  den 
Ven,  Encore  Romanos  le  Melode,  in  Byzant.  Zeitschr.  (1903),  xii.  153—166. 

36* 


Kg.  THIRD    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

2.  SERGIUS.  —  Sergius,  patriarch  of  Constantinople  (610—638),  is 
the  founder  of  Monotheletism  which,  as  its  name  indicates,  teaches  that 
there  is  one  will  in  Christ  ($»  UXi/jfia)  and  one  divine-human  energy 
(liia  ttsavdptxr]  hipysia),  hoping  by  this  concession  to  win  back  the 
Monophysites  to  ecclesiastical  unity.  It  is  Sergius  and  not,  as  was 
formerly  believed,  Georgius  Pisides  (see  no.  4),  who  wrote  the  most 
celebrated  of  all  the  hymns  of  the  Greek  Church,  the  so-called  «Greek 
Te  I)eum» :  ßfivoQ)  äxatttaroQ.  It  is  a  hymn  of  thanksgiving  to  the 
Blessed  Virgin  for  the  miraculous  deliverance,  through  her  intercession, 
of  Constantinople  and  the  empire  from  the  Avars  (626).  The  name 
dxd&HJTOQ  indicates  that  both  clergy  and  laity  remained  standing 
while  it  was  sung;  other  hymns  were  known  as  the  xadiafiara, 
because  while  they  were  sung  the  laity  and  clergy  were  usually 
seated.  Jacobi  says  of  this  magnificent  hymn :  All  that  enthusiasm 
for  the  Blessed  Virgin,  knowledge  of  biblical  types,  and  in  general 
of  religious  objects  and  thoughts,  could  contribute;  all  that  could 
be  added  in  the  shape  of  elegant  diction,  graceful  expression,  artistic 
rhythm  and  rhyme,  has  in  this  hymn  been  attained  in  a  degree 
hitherto  unequalled. 

There  are  new  editions  of  the  Acathistus  hymn  in  Christ  and  Paranikas, 
Anthologia  graeca,  pp.  140 — 147:  Piira,  Analecta  sacra,  i.  250 — 262. 
P.  de  Meester,  L'inno  acatisto  ('Axafrirroc  u|jiv<k),  in  Bessarione,  1904,  pp.  134 
to  143.  For  a  criticism  of  the  hymn  cf.  Jacobi,  1.  c,  pp.  228 — 232.  A 
second  Acathistus  hymn:  De  b.  Virginis  transitu  (Para,  1.  c. ,  pp.  263 
to  272)  so  closely  resembles  the  hymn  of  Sergius,  that  it  might  well  be 
attributed  to  the  same  period  and  the  same  author.  Two  letters  of  Ser- 
gius to  Cyrus,  bishop  of  Phasis  among  the  Lazi,  and  to  Pope  Honorius, 
are  found  amid  the  acts  of  the  Sixth  Ecumenical  Council  (Mansi,  SS.  Cone. 
Coll.,  xi.  525-528  529—537).  Sergius  is  also  the  author  of  the  Ecthesis 
(exposition  of  faith)  issued  in  638  by  the  emperor  Heraclius,  and  preserved 
in  the  acts  of  the  Lateran  Synod  of  649  (Mansi,  1.  c. ,  x.  991 — 997).  It 
prohibited  the  use  of  the  terms  ffa  hifptm  and  000  b£p?it*i,  and  declared 
that  in  Christ  there  was  but  one  will:  ev  Hhrpib  In  both  these  letters 
Sergius  appeals  to  a  letter  of  Mennas,  patriarch  of  Constantinople  (f  552), 
to  Pope  Vigilius,  in  which  Mennas  taught  the  doctrine  of  one  will :  sv  to 
too  Xputoo  {HXr^z.  xal  ;j.(av  £coo-oiov  iv%siav.  This  (lost)  letter  was  very 
probably  spurious,  perhaps  a  forgery  by  Sergius  himself.  Cf.  Hefele, 
Konzihengeschichte,  2.  ed.,  ii.  855  ff.;  iii.  130.  The  controversy,  after  all, 
had  begun  before  the  time  of  Sergius.  For  the  Monothelite  writers  see 
A.  Ehrhard,  in  Krumbacher,  Gesch.  der  byzant.  Lit,  pp.  60  f.  —  Between 
Romanos  and  Sergius  Pitra  (1.  c,  pp.  224—226;  Proleg,  xxxiii  f.)  places 
the  grandiose  funeral  hymn  (canticum  in  mortuorum  exequiis)  of  a  certain 
Anastasius,  a  poet  otherwise  unknown.  For  some  partial  versions  see 
Jacobi,  1.  c  pp.  224-226.  In  the  Revue  de  l'Orient  Latin  (1901),  vi. 
444—452,  b.  Petndes  identifies  this  Anastasius  with  the  Sinaita  (§  107,  4). 

3.  SOPHRONIUS,  —  In  Sophronius,  patriarch  of  Jerusalem  (634 
to  638),  Monotheletism  found  an  opponent  at  once  vigorous  and 
influential  (§  104,  2).  Long  before  his  elevation  to  the  patriarchal 
see,  Sophronius  had  with  much  energy  defended  the  creed  of  Chal- 


§  io5.    poets.  565 

cedon.  The  first  act  of  his  administration  was  to  issue  a  long 
and  learned  synodal  letter  in  which  he  explained  and  defended 
the  two  wills  in  Christ.  A  large  work  in  which  he  collected,  in  two 
books,  six  hundred  «testimonies  antiquorum»  in  favor  of  the  two  wills 
or  energies  in  Christ  has  perished.  Several  of  his  homilies  have  been 
preserved.  They  treat  of  ecclesiastical  feasts;  Christmas,  the  Annuncia- 
tion, the  Presentation  in  the  Temple  (Hypante  or  Hypapante),  and 
others.  Their  doctrinal  contents  are  very  remarkable,  and  also  their 
oratorical  style.  The  homily  on  the  Annunciation  merits  attention 
because  of  its  length  and  of  its  contents.  Sophronius  can  also 
claim  a  place  among  the  Greek  ecclesiastical  poets.  There  is  extant 
a  collection  of  his  Anacreontic  odes:  'Avaxpeuvreta,  twenty- three  in 
number,  in  praise  of  the  feasts  of  the  Church.  They  are  meditations 
of  a  profound  theologian  and  as  such  were  meant  for  a  restricted 
circle  of  readers.  Other  poetical  effusions  are  current  under  his 
name,  rhythmic  hymns  for  liturgical  uses,  known  as  IdwfieXa,  or 
hymns  sung  to  a  special  melody.  Paranikas  has  shown  that  the 
rhythmic  hymns  edited  by  Cardinal  Mai  under  the,  title  of  Tptwdiov 
and  attributed  by  him  to  Sophronius,  are  really  the  composition  of 
Joseph  the  Hymnographer,  in  the  ninth  century.  In  general  it  may 
be  said  that  the  works  current  under  the  name  of  Sophronius  await 
a  critical  revision. 

The  Epistola  synodica  of  Sophronius  is  found  in  Mansi,  SS.  Cone.  Coll., 
xi.  461 — 510;  and  in  Migne,  PG.,  lxxxvii  3,  3147 — 3200.  Cf.  Hefele,  Konzilien- 
geschichte, 2.  ed.,  iii.  159 — 166.  The  larger  anti-Monothelite  work  is 
mentioned  by  Stephen,  bishop  of  Dora  (in  Palestine),  in  his  report  to  the 
Lateran  Synod  of  649  [Mansi,  1.  c,  x.  895).  Nine  homilies  of  Sophronius 
are  found  in  Migne,  PG.,  lxxxvii  3,  3201—3364);  some  are  given  only  in 
a  Latin  version ;  of  the  1-puofMQv  on  St.  John  the  Evangelist  only  two  small 
fragments  are  printed  (Ib.,  lxxxvii  3,  3363—3364).  The  Oratio  (Ib.,  lxxxvii  3, 
4001 — 4004)  is  clearly  only  a  fragment  of  an  Epiphany  homily.  H.  Usener 
has  edited  the  Greek  text  of  two  homilies  that  are  (in  Latin  only)  in 
Migne:  the  first  is  a  Christmas  homily  (Dec.  25.,  634;  Ib.,  lxxxvii  3,  3201 
to  3212),  and  was  published  by  Usener,  in  Rhein.  Museum  f.  Philol.,  new 
series  (1886),  xli.  500—516;  cf.  Id.,  Religionsgeschichtl.  Untersuchungen, 
Bonn,  1889,  i.  326  ff.  The  second  is  a  homily  on  the  Presentation  of 
our  Lord  (Ib.,  lxxxvii  3,  3287—3302)  and  was  published  as  a  university 
program  (Bonn,  1889),  with  notes  on  the  Greek  diction  of  the  writer. 
Usener  also  proved  in  his  edition  of  the  Acts  of  the  Persian  martyr  Ana- 
stasius  (Bonn-program,  1894)  that  the  sermon  on  Anastasius  (Ib.,  xcii.  1679 
to  1730)  hitherto  attributed 'to  Georgius  Pisides  (see  no.  4)^  is  really  the 
work  of  Sophronius.  In  the  AvaAsxta  Up«JoXup#cix?j<  arayuoXo^as,  St.  Peters- 
burg, 1898,  v.  151— 168,  A.  Papadopulos-Kerameus  published  a  new  sermon 
of  Sophronius  on  baptism.  Apart  from  his  homilies  and  sermons  and  the 
lives  of  Saints  already  mentioned,  the  following  works  are  printed  in  Migne 
under  the  name  of  Sophronius :  De  peccatorum  confessione,  rcspt  ^tttfsXt&v 
(PG.,  lxxxvii  3,  3365—3372),  De  baptismate  apostolorum  (Ib.,  lxxxvii  3,  3371 
to  3372),  Fragmentumdogmaticum  (Ib.,  lxxxvii  3,  401 1— 4012),  an  incomplete 
commentary  on  the  liturgy  or  Commentarius  liturgicus  (Ib.,  lxxxvii  3,  3981 


566 


THIRD   PERIOD.      FIRST    SECTION. 


to  4002),  and  a  little  work  in  Latin  which  is  considered  to  be  spurious:  De 
laboribus,  certaminibus  et  peregrinationibus  SS.  Petri  et  Pauli  (Ib.,  lxxxvii  3, 
401 1 — 4014).  In  the  (Russian)  Annals  of  the  Historico-philological  Society 
of  Odessa  (1894),  N.  Th.  Krasnojeljcev  investigated  the  liturgical  commentary 
and  proved  it  a  forgery;  cf.  Ehrhard,  in  Krumbacher,  Gesch.  d.  byzant.  Lit., 
2.  ed.,  p.  190.  The  following  poems  of  Sophronius  are  in  Migne:  the  Ana- 
creontica  (Ib.,  lxxxvii  3,  3733 — 3838),  the  Triodium  (Ib.,  lxxxvii  3,  3839  to 
3982),  the  Troparium  horarum  (Ib.,  lxxxvii  3,  4005—4010),  Epitaphia  Eulogii 
et  Joannis  Eleemos.,  Alexandrinorum  praesulum  (Ib.,  lxxxvii  3,  4009—4010). 
On  the  origin  of  the  Triodium  see  Paranikas ,  Beiträge  zur  byzant.  Lit., 
Munich,  1870,  pp.  1 — 22.  An  Anacreontic  ode  (no.  14)  lacking  in  Migne, 
was  edited  by  L.  Ehrhard,  in  a  program  of  the  Strassburg  Gymnasium 
(1887).  Three  Anacreontic  odes  were  published  by  Christ  and  Paranikas, 
in  Anthologia  graeca  (pp.  43— 47 ;  cf.  Proleg.,  pp.  xxvii  f.)  under  the  name 
of  Sophronius,  also  two  of  his  Idiomela  (pp.  96 — 97 ;  cf.  p.  liii).  For  a 
description  and  an  appreciation  of  the  Anacreontica  cf.  Bouvy ,  1.  c. 
(see  no.  1),  pp.  169 — 182.  S.  Vailhi ,  Sophrone  le  sophiste  et  Sophrone 
le  patriarche,  in  Revue  de  l'Orient  chretien  (1902),  vii.  360 — 363,  and 
(1903),  viii.  32—69.  —  Modestus,  the  predecessor  (631 — 634)  of  Sophro- 
nius in  the  see  of  Jerusalem,  left  a  panegyric  on  the  bodily  assumption  of 
the  Blessed  Virgin  into  heaven:  ipcuifMov  zk  xrjv  xoijxr^iv  trjc  forepa^tac 
8*<77:öivT}c  fjAwv  {ko-roxou  Jtol  dsi-apftevou  Motpia?  (Migne,  PG.,  Ixxxvi  2,  3277 
to  3312).  Photius  (Bibl.  Cod.  275)  has  preserved^  brief  excerpts  from  two 
other  homilies  of  Modestus.  —  Zacharias,  the  predecessor  (609—631)  of 
Modestus,  taken  prisoner  by  the  Persian  king  Chosroes  but  liberated  by 
Heradius,  has  left  us  an  encyclical  composed  during  his  captivity  (Ib., 
Ixxxvi  2,  3227—3234).  He  is  also  credited  with  the  authorship  of  a  work 
entitled:  De  persica  captivitate  (Ib.,  Ixxxvi  2,  3235—3268). 

4.  GEORGIUS  PISIDES.  —  A  highly  gifted  and  prolific  poet  arose 
in  the  person  of  George  of  Pisidia,  a  contemporary  of  Sergius  and  So- 
phronius, deacon  and  custodian  of  the  Sacristy  (skenophylax),  according 
to  others  archivist  (chartophylax),  of  Sancta  Sophia  at  Constantinople. 
His  poetry  is  composed  according  to  the  laws  of  quantitative  metre, 
and  in  iambic  trimeter,  usually  in  dodecasyllabic  lines.  His  verse 
is  fluent  and  very  correct,  his  narrative  simple  and  easily  understood. 
Three  of  his  larger  poems  deal  with  political  events:  the  victories 
of  Heradius  (610-641)  over  the  Persians:  elQ  ttjv  xarä  Ilepewv  ix- 
orpazetav  HpaxAeiou  toü  ßamXicüq,  in  1088  verses;  the  siege  of  Con- 
stantinople by  the  Avars  (626)  and  their  defeat:  elQ  zy»  re,ofjte^u 
zipoöov  tcou  ßapßdptov  xa\  elQ  ryv  wjtwv  daroyjav,  in  541  verses;  and 
the  final  victory  of  the  emperor  over  Chosroes:  'Hpaxhar  jjTot  elc 
rrjv  rzXziav  tztcoovj  Xoopi'mu  ßaad£wQ  Uepacov,  in  471  verses.  Three 
other  poems  are  didactic  and  edifying  in  character:  on  the  creation 
ol  the  world,  e^fxepov  %  xoofxoopfta,  in  1910  verses,  (in  Hercher's 
edition,  1894  verses),  probably  incomplete;  on  the  vanity  of  human 
we.  elQ  rov pdtaiov ßiov,  in  262  verses  (also  a  fragment),  and  against 
Severus  (§  102,2),  the  Monophysite  patriarch  of  Antioch:  xal  doa- 
«*PouS  Zeorjpo'j  AvrioydaQ,  in  726  verses.  He  is  the  author  also  of 
a  nymn:  efc  Trf,  apau  dvdaraat,  too  Xptaroo  too  Veoo  frtfyf  and  of 
many  epigrams  and  fragments.  ^ 


§    105.      POETS.  567 

A  complete  edition  of  his  works  was  published  by  J.  M.  Querci,  Rome, 
1777.  The  three  historical  carmina  were  published  by  J.  Bekker,  Bonn, 
1837  (Corpus  Script,  hist.  Byzant.).  The  contents  of  both  editions  are  re- 
printed in  Migne,  PG.,  xcii.  1161  —  1754.  Georgii  Pisidae  carmina  inedita 
were  edited  by  L.  Sternbach,  in  Wiener  Studien  (1891),  xiii.  1  ff.;  (1892), 
xiv.  51  ff.  The  Hexaemeron  was  edited,  with  many  corrections,  by 
R.  Her  eher ,  in  the  appendix  to  his  edition  of  the  work  of  the  Sophist 
Aelianus  (f  after  222),  Leipzig,  1864— 1866.  An  Armenian  version  of  the 
Hexaemeron  is  probably  the  work  of  Stephen,  bishop  of  Siuniq  (eighth 
century);  it  was  edited  by  J.  H.  A.  Tiroean,  Venice,  1900.  In  Wiener 
Studien  (1886),  viii.  292 — 304;  (1887),  ix.  207 — 222,  J.  Hilberg  explained 
the  metre  of  Georgius  Pisides,  and  contributed  to  the  textual  criticism  of 
his  writings.  On  his  merits  as  a  poet,  cf.  Bouvy,  1.  c.  (see  no.  1),  pp.  164 
to  169.  We  have  seen  that  the  Hymnus  Acathistus  is  the  work  of  Ser- 
gius,  not  of  Georgius  Pisides  (see  no.  2),  also  that  Sophronius,  and  not 
our  Georgius,  is  the  author  of  the  prose  oration  on  the  Persian  martyr 
Anastasius  (see  no.  3).  L.  Sternbach,  De  Georgii  Pisidae  apud  Theo- 
phanem  aliosque  historicos  reliquiis;  De  Georgii  Pisidae  fragmentis  a 
Suida  servatis ;  Observationes  in  Georgii  Pisidae  carmina  historica,  Cracow, 
1899 — 1900. 

5.  ANDREW  OF  CRETE.  —  The  rhythmic  poetry  of  the  Greek 
liturgy  received  a  new  development  through  the  so-called  Canons, 
xaWtv£Q,  or  hymns  each  of  which  is  made  up  of  nine  odes,  each 
ode  being  in  turn  variously  subdivided.  The  invention  of  these  new 
hymns  is  attributed  to  Andrew,  a  native  of  Damascus,  who  flourished 
in  the  latter  half  of  the  seventh  century,  and  was  for  several  years 
a  monk  in  Jerusalem  and  secretary  to  the  patriarch  of  that  town 
(Hierosolymitanus).  He  was  made  archbishop  of  Crete  before  711 
and  died  about  720.  Under  Constantine  IV.  Pogonatus  (668 — 685) 
he  appears  as  a  defender  of  the  orthodox  faith  against  the  Mono- 
theletes;  under  Philippicus  Bardanes  (711  — 713)  he  is  said  to  have 
gone  over  to  that  heresy,  but  to  have  returned  to  the  true  faith 
after  the  death  of  that  emperor.  In  the  reign  of  Leo  the  Isaurian 
(717 — 741)  he  appears  as  a  defender  of  the  veneration  of  images. 
He  is  honored  as  a  Saint  in  the  Greek  Church.  Besides  several 
comprehensive  discourses,  we  owe  to  his  prolific  pen  many  homilies 
on  the  Mother  of  God,  also  numerous  Idiomela  (see  no.  3)  and  «canons». 
His  most  renowned  composition  is  the  «Great  Canon»,  6  fiiyac,  xavcov, 
a  hymn  of  penance  and  compunction,  in  no  less  than  two  hundred 
and  fifty  strophes.  While  his  interminable  prolixity  and  repetition  of 
the  same  thoughts  are  extremely  fatiguing,  it  must  be  admitted  that 
he  exhibits  genuine  emotion  and  a  certain  robustness  of  expression. 
In  general,  his  poetry  is  didactic  and  reflective;  but  amid  so  many 
lengthy  dogmatic  definitions,  and  innumerable  antitheses,  metaphors 
and  verbal  juggleries,  one  misses  the  natural  sublimity  of  the  earlier 
melodists. 

The  printed  works  of  St.  Andrew  are  in  Migne,  PG.,  xcvii.  789 — 1444- 
Christ  and  Paranikas   republished   in   their  Anthologia    graeca  the  first  of 


568 


THIRD   PERIOD.      FIRST    SECTION. 


the  four  parts  of  the  Great  Canon  (147—157),  also  a  «Canon»  of  doubtful 
authenticity  on  the  feast  of  the  Chains  of  St.  Peter  (157— 161).  A  hitherto 
unknown  sermon  of  St.  Andrew  on  James,  the  apostle  and  brother  of  the 
Lord,  was  published  by  A.  Papadopulos-Kerameus,  in  ÄvaXsxta  Upo<wXüf»ra% 
btowXoy«?,  St.  Petersburg,  1891,  pp.  1—14-  Cf.  J.  Haussleiter,  in  Zeit- 
schrift für  Kirchengesch.  (1893— 1894),  xiv.  73—76.  A  fragment  of  a 
new  homily  of  St.  Andrew  is  published  in  the  riarfitax^  ßißXto^xT)  of  the  Philo- 
logical Society  of  Athens  (1890),  pp.  330— 331;  cf.  H.  Heissenberg ,  in 
Byzant.  Zeitschr.  (1901),  x.  505—514.  From  an  iambic  poem  of  St.  Andrew, 
published  (ib.)  by  Heissenberg,  the  latter  concludes  that  our  author  re- 
nounced Monotheletism  for  the  orthodox  faith.  S.  Vailhd  discourses  on  the 
relations  of  St.  Andrew  with  the  Monotheletes  and  his  return  to  ortho- 
doxy, and  places  his  death  on  July  4.,  740 :  St.  Andre  de  Crete,  in  Echos 
d'Orient  (1902),  v.  372—387.  See  also  E.  Marin,  in  Diet,  de  Theologie, 
Paris,  1903,  i.  1182 — 1184. 

6.  ST.  JOHN  OF  DAMASCUS  AND  COSMAS  THE  SINGER.  —  Andrew 
found  many  imitators,  though  the  prolixity  of  his  «canons»  was  felt 
to  be  intolerable.  The  nine  odes  were  soon  reduced  to  a  smaller 
number  of  strophes.  The  most  celebrated  versifiers  in  the  new  style 
are  John  of  Damascus  and  his  adopted  brother  Cosmas  the  Singer. 
We  shall  deal  elsewhere  at  length  with  the  life  of  the  former  §  108,  2. 
Both  Cosmas  and  John  enjoyed  the  benefit  of  an  excellent  education 
at  the  hands  of  a  Sicilian  monk,  also  known  as  Cosmas,  whom  the 
father  of  John  had  freed  from  captivity  among  the  Saracens ,  and 
who  was  a  profound  scholar  both  in  theology  and  profane  science  *, 
Both  John  and  his  brother  Cosmas  entered  the  famous  monastery  of 
St.  Saba,  near  Jerusalem;  the  former  was  destined  to  die  within  its 
walls,  while  the  latter  became  eventually  bishop  of  Majuma  in  Phenicia 
(743);  the  date  of  his  death  is  unknown.  His  sojourn  at  St.  Saba 
procured  for  Cosmas  the  name  of  Hierosolymitanus  or  Hagiopolites 
(Hieropolites) ,  though  he  is  more  usually  known  as  «the  singer», 
9  fieXwdoq.  Both  John  and  Cosmas  agree  in  sacrificing  to  an  artistic 
and  ornate  versification  the  imaginative  boldness  and  lucidity  of  diction 
characteristic  of  the  earlier  liturgical  poets ;  they  even  surpass  Andrew 
of  Crete  as  masters  of  refinement,  variety,  and  technical  skill  in  the 
treatment  of  language.  The  faultless  Hellenic  verse  of  Gregory  of 
Nazianzus  was  their  model.  Indeed,  Cosmas  wrote  «scholia»  on  the 
poems  of  the  Nazianzene.  His  Canons  and  Odes,  like  those  of  his 
brother  John,  celebrate  generally  the  feasts  of  our  Lord.  Protest  has 
lately  been  entered  against  the  traditional  opinion  that  John  com- 
posed the  Octoechos,  an  official  collection  of  liturgical  hymns  for 
Sunday  services  still  used  by  the  Greek  Church.  Though  in  warmth 
of  sentiment  and  splendor  of  diction  John  is  much  superior  to  his 
adopted  brother,  he  is  no  less  than  Cosmas  the  slave  of  a  minute 
and  wearisome   stylistic   dexterity.     He   revived   the  use  of  quantita- 

/  Vi;a  S.  loan.  Damasc,  c.  9,  a  work  probably  composed  by  John  VI.,  patriarch 
of  Jerusalem  (f  about  969). 


§    IOÖ.      EXEGETES.       CANONISTS.       ASCETICS.  569 

tive  metre;  at  least  of  three  of  his  «canons»,  those  on  Christmas, 
Theophany  (Epiphany),  and  Pentecost  ,  are  in  iambic  trimeters  (see 
no.  4).  At  the  same  time  he  is  faithful  to  the  new  technique,  for 
his  verse  is  also  accentuated  rhythmically.  In  their  predilection 
for  clever  linguistic  artifice  the  later  Byzantines  came  to  admire  John 
and  Cosmas  as  the  princes  of  Greek  hymnography.  Suidas  asserts 1 
that  there  never  was,  and  never  will  be,  anything  comparable  to  the 
«Canons»  of  John  and  Cosmas:  ouyxpioiv  oux  ioi^avro  oddk  o£$awro 
äv,  piypto,  6  xaW  Tjpäc,  ßioQ  TrepaicoftrjOETai. 

The  poems  of  St.  John  of  Damascus  are  collected  in  Migne,  PG.,  xcvi. 
817 — 856  1363 — 1408;  the  «Canons»,  printed  Ib.,  xcvi.  137 1 — 1408,  first 
edited  by  Mai,  Spicilegium  Romanum,  ix.  713 — 739,  are  certainly  spurious, 
probably  the  work  of  a  younger  Johannes  Monachus-,  cf.  Christ  et  Para- 
nikas,  Anthologia  graeca,  Proleg.,  p.  xlvii;  there  are  (pp.  117 — 121)  six 
small  poems  and  (pp.  205 — 236)  eight  «canons»  of  St.  John.  The  three 
metrical  «canons»  (pp.  205 — 217)  were  lately  revised  by  A.  Nauck ,  in 
Melanges  Gre'co-Romains,  St.  Petersburg,  1894,  pp.  199 — 223.  Cf.  P.  Rocchi, 
In  paracleticam  Deiparae  Sanctissimae  S.  Johanni  Damasceno  vulgo  tri- 
butam  animadversion  es,  in  Bessarione  (1902),  vi,  series  II,  vol.  iii.  22 — 32 
194 — 210;  vol.  iv.  217 — 234;  (1903  — 1904),  viii.  48 — 55  177  — 186  (very 
little  belongs  to  the  Damascene).  —  The  catalogue  of  the  poetical  works 
of  St.  Cosmas  is  not  yet  fixed  with  certainty;  there  is  even  reason  to 
doubt  the  genuineness  of  some  compositions  ascribed  to  him.  His  master 
Cosmas  was  also  a  liturgical  poet,  and  it  is  very  often  difficult  to  dis- 
tinguish to  which  Cosmas  the  manuscripts  mean  to  attribute  the  poems 
handed  down  under  that  name.  Migne  gives  (PG.,  xcviii)  thirteen  hymni 
Cosmae  Hierosolymitani  (459 — 514)  and  eleven  aliae  odae  Cosmae  monachi 
(513—524).  Christ  and  Paranikas  (1.  c,  pp.  161—204)  publish  fourteen 
«canons»  under  the  name  of  Cosmas  the  younger;  cf.  also  Pitra,  Analecta 
sacra,  i.  410—412  527 — 529.  The  scholia  of  Cosmas  Junior  on  the  poems 
of  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  are  reprinted  in  Mai,  Spicileg.  Rom.,  ii  2,  1  to 
373;  Migne,  PG.,  xxxviii.  339 — 679.  —  Theodori  Prodrom!  commentaries 
in  carraina  sacra  melodorum  Cosmae  Hierosolymitani  et  Joannis  Damasceni 
ad  fidem  codd.  mss.  primum  edidit  H.  M.  Stevenson  Senior.  Praefatus 
est  J.  B.  Pitra,  Rome,  1888. 

§  106.  Exegetes.  Canonists.  Ascetics. 
I.  EXEGETES.  —  About  520,  as  it  seems,  Andrew,  archbishop 
of  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia,  wrote  a  commentary  on  the  Apocalypse 2. 
It  possesses  a  special  interest  as  being  the  oldest  Greek  interpretation 
of  the  Apocalypse  that  has  reached  us;  it  contains,  moreover,  the 
complete  Greek  text  of  the  book.  We  know,  also,  but  only  from 
manuscript-catalogues,  that  he  composed  a  work  on  the  Book  of 
Daniel,  and  another  work  entitled  ^epaneorixvj.  Olympiodorus ,  a 
deacon  of  Alexandria  in  the  first  half  of  the  sixth  century,  seems 
to  have  written  a  number  of  works  illustrative  of  several  biblical 
books.    A  published  commentary  on  Ecclesiastes   bears   his   name3; 

1  Lexicon,  rec.  Bernhardy,  i  2,    1029.  2  Migne,  PG.,  cvi.   215—458. 

3  Ib.,  xciii.  477 — 628. 


Cn0  THIRD    PERIOD.      FIRST    SECTION. 

there  is  also  extant  a  manuscript  copy  of  his  commentary  on  Jere- 
mias.  Fragments  of  this  commentary  are  doubtless  scattered  through 
the  numerous  short  scholia  attributed  to  an  otherwise  obscure  Olympio- 
dorus  in  the  Greek  Catena  on  Jeremias,  Lamentations,  and  Baruch, 
edited  by  M.  Ghisler1.  Migne  also  attributes  to  an  Olympiodorus 
some  scholia  on  Job2,  on  Proverbs3,  and  a  brief  fragment  on  Luke 
vi.  23 4.  The  authenticity  of  these  fragments,  or  rather  the  identity 
of  their  author  with  our  Olympiodorus  awaits  confirmation.  —  A 
certain  Peter  of  Laodicea,  said  to  belong  to  the  seventh  century, 
composed  Catena-like  commentaries  on  the  four  Gospels,  some  frag- 
ments of  which  have  been  published5.  It  may  be  suspected  from 
one  of  these  fragments  that  Peter's  commentary  on  Mark  is  identical 
with  the  commentary  on  Mark  published  by  Chr.  Fr.  Matthaei  (Moscow, 
1775)  and  attributed  by  him  to  Victor  of  Antioch  (§  99,  6).  — 
Anastasius  III.,  patriach  of  Nicaea  about  700,  left  a  commentary  on 
the  Psalms  that  awaits  an  editor. 

The  Greek  text  of  the  commentary  on  the  Apocalypse  by  Andrew  of 
Caesarea  was  first  published  by  Fr.  Sylburg,  Heidelberg,  1596.  It  is  also 
printed  in  A.  Cramer,  Catena  in  epistolas  catholicas,  Oxford,  1840,  pp.  497 
to  582,  under  the  name  of  Oecumenius,  conjectured  to  have  been  bishop 
of  Tricca  in  Thessaly.  Migne  (PG.,  cvi.  7 — 8)  erroneously  places  Andrew 
in  the  ninth  century;  cf.  Fr.  Diekamp,  in  Hist.  Jahrbuch  (1897),  xviii.  1 — 36, 
cf.  pp.  602  f.,  and  ib.,  p.  34,  for  traces  of  other  writings  of  Andrew  of 
Caesarea.  Since  1901  the  personality  of  Oecumenius  has  become  better 
known  through  Diekamp  's  discovery  of  his  commentary  on  the  Apocalypse. 
Cf.  S.  Vailhi,  Dictionnaire  de  The'ologie,  Paris,  1908,  iii.  1181.  It  seems 
that  this  author  was  a  Severian  Monophysite,  also  a  partisan  of  the  Orige- 
nistic  apocatastasis ,  and  that  he  flourished  about  600.  Andrew  of  Crete 
is  alleged  to  have  been  acquainted  with  his  commentary  on  the  Apo- 
calypse and  to  have  utilized  it.  If  this  were  true,  the  date  of  520  for  the 
work  of  Andrew  of  Caesarea  would  have  to  be  abandoned.  It  follows 
also  that  the  other  works  attributed  to  Oecumenius  cannot  belong  to  him ; 
cf.  Diekamp,  in  Sitzungsberichte  der  kgl.  Akad.  der  Wissensch. ,  Berlin, 
1901,  pp.  1046 — 1056;  S.  Ptirides ,  Oecumenius  de  Tricca,  ses  oeuvres, 
son  culte,  in  Echos  d'  Orient  (1903),  vii.  307—310.  —  The  date  of  Olympio- 
dorus, formerly  calculated  in  various  ways,  is  now  rendered  certain  by 
the  signature  of  a  manuscript  of  his  commentary  on  Jeremias  belonging 
to  the  Barberini  Library  at  Rome:  S.  de  Magistris ,  Acta  martyrum  ad 
Ostia  Tiberina  sub  Claudio  Gothico,  Rome,  1795,  PP-  286  f-  In  tnis 
manuscript  Olympiodorus  is  called  «a  deacon  of  Alexandria,  ordained  by 
John  Nikiotes  (Nixmottt)?)  ,  archbishop  of  Alexandria».  The  Monophysite 
patriarch  of  Alexandria  John  III.,  called  6  Nixeiforjc  or 'Nixdu&rqc  (ofNikiu?) 
died  in  May  516,  after  administering  the  see  for  eleven  years;  cf.  A.  v.  Gut- 
schmid,  Kleine  Schriften,  herausgegeben  von  Fr.  Fühl,  Leipzig,  1890,  ii. 
456  f.  The  Catena  on  Job,  republished  completely  in  Migne,  PG.,  xciii. 
13-470,  does  not  belong  in  its  entirety  to  Olympiodorus,  as  was  imagined 
by  F.    Comitolus   who    translated    the    Catena    into    Latin    (Lyons,    1586; 

1  Lyons,   1623;  cf.  Migne,  PG.,  xciii.  627—780.  2  Ib.,    13—470  passim. 

Ib.,  469—478,  in  Latin  only.  *  Ib.,   779—780. 

5  Ib.,  lxxxvi  2,  3321—3336. 


§    IOÖ.      EXEGETES.       CANONISTS.       ASCETICS.  57  I 

Venice,  1587).  It  is  rather  a  work  ofNicetas,  bishop  ofSerrae  and  after- 
wards metropolitan  of  Heraclea,  in  the  eleventh  century,  a  discovery  owing 
to  P.  Junius,  the  first  editor  of  the  Greek  text  (London,  1637).  —  On  the 
patriarch  Anastasius  III.  of  Nicaea  cf.  M.  Le  Quien ,  Oriens  christianus, 
Paris,  1740,  i.  644.  A.  Lauriotes  describes  in  'Exy.Xr^-asTty.r]  'ÄXijOtwt, 
June  26.,  1892,  pp.  134—135,  a  (mutilated)  manuscript  of  his  commentary 
on  the  Psalms. 

2.  CANONISTS.  —  As  early  as  the  sixth  century  the  Greeks  felt 
the  need  of  a  compendious  and  systematic  collection  of  ecclesiastic- 
al legislation.  The  oldest  of  the  extant  canonical  collections  is  that 
of  Johannes  Scholasticus  in  fifty  tituli,  compiled,  it  seems,  while  he 
was  still  a  layman.  In  565  Justinian  made  him  patriarch  of  Con- 
stantinople, a  position  which  he  held  until  his  death  in  577,  while  the 
legitimate  patriarch  Eutychius  (§  104,  3)  was  obliged  to  live  in  exile. 
During  his  term  of  office  John  issued  a  second  and  enlarged  edition 
of  his  collection  of  canons,  and  added  to  it  selected  enactments  from 
the  Novelise  of  Justinian  in  eighty-seven  chapters;  from  the  re-arrange- 
ment and  fusion  of  these  two  works  arose  the  first  so-called  Nomo- 
canon  or  collection  of  civil  and  ecclesiastical  laws;  it  is  worthy  of 
note  that  the  actual  form  of  the  Nomocanon  can  no  longer  be  at- 
tributed to  the  patriarch  John  as  his  personal  work.  Photius  had 
read  *  a  xairijrqTixÖQ  Xoyoq  of  Johannes  Scholasticus  on  the  Trinity, 
composed  in  566.  Another  Nomocanon  formerly  attributed  to  Pho- 
tius 2,  was  composed,  according  to  later  researches,  in  the  seventh 
century,  and  can  only  have  been  re-edited  by  Photius  (f  about  891). 
—  A  much  older  collection  of  canons,  in  sixty  tituli,  is  mentioned 
by  Johannes  Scholasticus  in  the  preface  to  his  first  work,  but  it  has 
perished  since  then.  —  After  the  death  of  St.  Eutychius  (582),  John  IV., 
the  Faster  (o  vrjaTsorf/Q,  ieiunator),  was  made  patriarch  of  Constan- 
tinople (582  —  595).  He  is  best  known  by  reason  of  the  controversies 
that  arose  between  him  and  the  popes  Pelagius  II.  and  Gregory  I., 
apropos  of  his  arrogant  assumption  of  the  title  of  «universal  patri- 
arch». He  was  formerly  accredited  with  the  authorship  of  a  long 
Pcenitentiale,  or  instruction  for  the  presbyter-penitentiary  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  his  office:  axoXovtiia  xac  zd$ig  im  egofioloyouiihcov^. 
Binterim  has  shown  that  it  is  a  spurious  work  and  belongs  to  a 
much  later  period.  A  Sermo  ad  eos  qui  peccatorum  confessionem 
patri  suo  spirituali  edituri  sunt 4  is  merely  an  excerpt  from  this  Pceni- 
tentiale ;  a  Sermo  de  pcenitentia  et  continentia  et  virginitate 5  is  else- 
where attributed  to  St.  Chrysostom.  Cardinal  Pitra  published  under 
the  name  of  John  the  Faster  a  Doctrina  monialium  et  pcenae  pro 
singulis  peccatis,  together  with  other  minor  writings.    The :  Rescriptum 

1  Bibl.  Cod.   75.  2  Migne,  PG  ,  civ.  975—1218. 

3  Ib.,  Ixxxviii.   1889— 1918;  cf.  1931  — 1936.  4  Ib.,  Ixxxviii.   1919— 1932. 

5  Ib.,  Ixxxviii.   1937 — 1978. 


*j2  THIRD    PERIOD.      FIRST    SECTION. 

de   sacramento  baptismatis,   addressed   by  the    patriarch   to  Leander 
of  Seville1,  seems  to  have  perished. 

The  Collection  of  Canons  (second  edition)  of  Johannes  Scholasticus 
was  edited  by  G.  Voelli  et  H.  Justelli,  Bibl.  fur.  can.  vet.,  Paris,  1661,  ii. 
499—602.  The  excerpts  from  the  Novellae  were  first  edited  by  G.  E. 
Heimbach,  Äve'xfiota,  Leipzig,  1840,  ii.  202—234.  For  supplements  to  both 
editions  cf.  J.  B.  Pitra,  Iuris  eccles.  Graecorum  hist,  et  monum.,  Rome, 
1868,  ii.  368  ff.,  and  J.  Hergenröther,  Archiv  f.  kathol.  Kirchenrecht  (1870), 
xxiii.'  208  ff.  The  first  Nomocanon  is  printed  in  Voelli  and  Justelli,  1.  c, 
ii.  603—660;  a  new  edition  of  it  is  in  Pitra,  1.  c,  ii.  416—420.  The  Nomo- 
canon formerly  attributed  to  Photius  is  in  Voelli  et  Justelli,  1.  c,  ii.  813  to 
1 140;  a  new  edition  in  Pitra,  1.  c,  ii.  433—640;  cf.  Hergenröther,  1.  c, 
211  ff.  E.  Zachariae  v.  Lingenthal,  Die  griechischen  Nomokanones,  St.  Peters- 
burg, 1877;  Id.,  Über  den  Verfasser  und  die  Quellen  des  (pseudo-photia- 
nischen)  Nomokanon  in  XIV  Titeln,  ib.,  1885.  —  The  Poenitentiale  formerly 
attributed  to  John  the  Faster  is  discussed  by  A.  J.  B inter  im ,  Die  vorzüg- 
lichsten Denkwürdigkeiten  der  christkatholischen  Kirche,  Mainz,  1829,  v  3, 
383 — 390 ;  K.  Holt,  Enthusiasmus  und  Bußgewalt  beim  griech.  Mönchtum, 
Leipzig,  1898,  pp.  289 — 298.  S.  Haidacher ,  Chrysostomus-Excerpte  in 
der  Rede  des  Johannes  Nesteutes  über  die  Buße,  in  Zeitschr.  für  kath. 
Theol.  (1902),  xxvi.  380—385.  Other  writings  attributed  to  this  author  are 
found  in  Pitra,  Spicilegium  Solesmense,  Paris,  1858,  iv.  416 — 444;  Id., 
Iuris  eccles.  Graec.  hist,  et  monum.  ii.  222 — 237.  On  his  controversies 
with  the  contemporary  popes  cf  H  Grisar,  in  Zeitschr.  für  kath.  Theol. 
(1880),  iv.  468 — 523;  Id. ,  Storia  di  Roma  e  dei  Papi  del  Medio  Evo, 
Part  III,  Rome,  1899,  pp.  222 — 240,  and  Hergenröther,  Photius,  i. 

3.  ASCETICS.  —  St.  John  Climacus  owes  his  fame  and  his  sur- 
name to  an  ascetic  work  known  as  «The  Ladder  (xAijia^)2.  It  de- 
scribes, under  the  image  of  a  ladder,  the  gradual  development  and 
continuous  perfection  of  the  soul  consecrated  to  God.  In  keeping 
with  the  thirty  years  of  our  Lord's  life  it  enumerates  as  many  steps 
in  the  way  of  Christian  progress.  In  the  little  treatise  «To  the 
Shepherd»  (npbc,  rbv  TrotjusvaJ3,  an  appendix  to  «The  Ladder»,  the 
pastoral  office  is  put  before  the  monastic  superior  as  his  true 
ideal;  the  previous  and  larger  work  was  meant  for  the  instruction 
of  the  monks.  Both  were  composed  at  the  request  of  a  friend  and 
admirer,  also  named  John,  superior  of  a  monastery  at  Raithu  on  the 
shore  of  the  Gulf  of  Suez,  some  eighteen  miles  southwest  of  Mount 
Sinai.  To  a  (contemporaneous)  monk  of  this  monastery,  a  certain 
Daniel,  we  owe  what  information  we  possess  concerning  John  Clima- 
cus. The  latter  was  born  about  525,  and  entered  the  monastery  of 
Mount  Sinai  at  the  age  of  sixteen;  later  on  he  retired  to  a  solitary 
cell  and  finally  to  a  cavern  at  the  foot  of  the  mountain.  He  had  lived, 
as  a  hermit  for  forty  years  when  the  fame  of  his  virtue  and  learn- 
ing (hence  he  is  known  as  Scholasticus)  induced  the  monks  of  Mount 
Sinai  to  choose  him  for  their  abbot  (hence  he  is  known  as  Sinaita). 

1  hid   HispaL,  De  viris  ill,  c.  39.  2  Migm>  pG     lxxxyiij    631-1164. 

Ib.,  lxxxviii.   1 165  — 1210. 


§    IOÖ.      EXEGETES.       CANONISTS.       ASCETICS.  573 

Before  his  death,  which  took  place  about  600,  he  again  retired  to  the 
solitude.  His  two  works  became  famous  in  due  time.  The  «Ladder» 
in  particular  attracted  the  attention  of  several  commentators.  The 
best  work  of  this  kind  is  the  «Scholia»  of  Johannes  of  Raithu  *.  — 
About  620,  Antiochus,  a  monk  of  St.  Saba  near  Jerusalem,  made  a 
collection  of  moral  sentences  in  one  hundred  and  thirty  chapters,  drawn 
mostly  from  Scripture  and  the  writings  of  the  Fathers.  The  Latin 
translator  erroneously  described  them  as  so  many  homilies.  The  work 
bore  the  title  «Pandects  of  Sacred  Scripture»:  TravdexTyg  t9}q  ayiaq 
ypapvJQ2,  and  was  meant  to  serve  as  a  manual  of  piety  for  the  monks 
of  the  cloister  of  Attaline  near  Ancyra,  whom  the  Persian  invasion 
had  compelled  to  wander  from  place  to  place,  and  therefore  to  live 
without  books.  A  prayer:  j&pi  TüpoaeoyrJQ  xat  igo/ioAoyyaecoQ3,  de- 
scribes the  sufferings  of  Jerusalem  at  the  time  of  its  conquest  by 
the  Persians  (614)  and  begs  God  to  remove  from  the  holy  places 
the  abomination  of  their  rule.  —  Dorotheus,  also  an  abbot  in  Pale- 
stine about  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  century,  is  held  to  be  the 
author  of  twenty-four  didactico-ascetic  tracts  for  monks :  didaaxaXiai 
ipü'/co(peXztQ  did<popoi 4 :  De  renuntiatione ,  De  humilitate ,  De  con- 
scientia,  De  divino  timore,  Non  debere  quemquam  suae  prudentiae 
confidere  etc.  The  last  treatise:  De  compositione  monachi,  is  ex- 
tant in  Latin  only;  it  is  followed  by  the  Greek  text5  of  eight  short 
letters  containing  instructions  and  counsels  for  monks. 

The  editio  princeps  of  both  works  of  St.  John  Climacus  was  brought  out 
by  Matth.  Raderus,  S.  J.,  Paris,  1633;  in  his  Isagoge  he  included  the  life  of 
our  author  by  the  monk  Daniel.  This  edition  is  in  Migne,  PG.,  lxxxviii; 
the  scholia  of  Abbot  John  are  ib.,  12 11 — 1248,  but  only  in  Latin,  re- 
printed from  Max.  Bibl.  vet.  Patr.,  Lyons,  1677,  x-  5°7 — 52°-  The  Greek 
text  of  both  works  was  edited  anew  by  Sophronios  Eremites,  Constantinople, 
1883.  See  a  German  translation  in  «Leitsterne  auf  der  Bahn  des  Heils», 
Landshut,  1834,  vii;  2.  ed.  (contains  only  the  «Ladder»),  Ratisbon,  1874;  in 
Byzant.  Zeitschr.  (1902),  xi.  35 — 37,  F.  Nau  discusses  the  chronology  of  the 
life  of  Climacus  and  modifies  considerably  the  received  dates ;  he  concludes 
that  he  was  born  before  579  and  died  about  649;  cf.  Fe  ssler- Jungmann, 
Instit.  Patrol,  ii  2,  452 — 459.  —  The  Greek  text  of  the  «Pandects»  of 
Antiochus  was  edited  by  Pronto  Ducaeus,  Paris,  1624.  Many  fragments  of 
earlier  patristic  writings  were  saved  by  their  incorporation  into  the  com- 
pilation of  Antiochus  (§  8,  4) ;  on  the  whimsical  theory  of  Cotterill  that 
Antiochus  was  the  author  of  the  Letter  of  Polycarp,  see  §  10,  2.  —  On 
Dorotheus  and  his  writings  cf.  Oudin,  Comment,  de  Script,  eccles.  i.  1623 
to  1636,  and  Fabricius- Harles,  Bibl.  Gr.,  xi.  103 — 108.  —  Thalassius,  abbot 
of  a  monastery  in  Libya  about  650,  left  four  hundred  sententiae  distributed 
in  four  «centuriae»,  in  pious  imitation  of  the  four  Gospels;  the  work  is 
known  as:  De  caritate  et  continentia  necnon  de  regimine  mentis  ad  Pau-, 
lum   presbyterum    [Migne,   PG.,    xci.   1427 — 1470).     On   the   letter   to    the 

1  Ib.,  lxxxviii.    1211 — 1248.  2  Ib.,  lxxxix.   1421  — 1850. 

3  Ib.,  lxxxix.    1849— 1856.  4  Ib.,   lxxxviii.    1611— 1838. 

5  Ib.,  lxxxviii.    1837  — 1842. 


574 


THIRD    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION 


emperor  Theodosius,  erroneously  printed  (Ib.,  xci.  147 1— 1480)  as  emsdem 
Thalassii  libellus  ad  Theodos.  imp.,  see  §  77,  12.  —  It  is  possible  that  the 
bishop  (?)  John  of  Carpathus  (an  island  between  Crete  and  Rhodes),  under 
whose  name  two  small  collections  of  monastic  exhortations  are  current: 
Ad  monachos  in  India,  eorum  rogatu,  capita  hortatoria  sive  documenta 
spiritualia,  and  Alia  capita  (Ib.,  lxxxv.  791  —  812  811—826;  both  of  them 
extant  in  Latin  only),  belongs  to  the  middle  of  the  seventh  century. 

§  107.    Dogmatic  and  polemical  writers. 

I.  ST.  ANASTASIUS  I.  OF  ANTIOCH.  —  He  was  patriarch  of  Antioch 
(559 — 599)*  an  intimate  friend  of  Gregory  the  Great,  and  in  trying 
times  a  resolute  champion  of  the  faith  and  liberty  of  the  Church. 
He  courageously  resisted  the  last  dogmatic  edicts  of  Justinian  in 
favor  of  Aphthartodocetism  \  The  emperor  Justin  II.  exiled  him  in 
570  and  placed  Gregory,  a  monk  of  Mount  Sinai,  in  the  patriarchal 
chair  (§  103,  3).  It  was  only  after  the  death  of  the  latter  (593)  that 
the  emperor  Maurice,  yielding  to  the  repeated  and  earnest  representa- 
tions of  Gregory  the  Great,  permitted  Anastasius  to  return  to  his 
see.  He  is  honored  by  the  Church  as  a  Saint.  It  would  seem  that 
most  of  his  writings  were  composed  during  his  long  exile.  They 
have  perished  in  great  measure,  or  have  not  yet  been  recognized. 
Among  them  were :  letters  and  homilies,  a  work  against  John  Philo- 
ponus  (§  101,  3),  «a  demonstration  of  the  great  and  quasi-angelic 
dignity  of  the  priesthood»,  and  others.  Under  his  name  there  is 
extant,  but  only  in  a  Latin  version:  De  nostris  rectis  dogmatibus 
veritatis  orationes  quinque2,  formally  a  collection  of  homilies,  but 
really  a  dogmatic  instruction  concerning  the  Trinity  and  the  Incarna- 
tion. These  homilies  were  never  orally  delivered,  but  committed  to 
writing  during  his  exile.  There  are  also  extant:  Sermones  quatuor3, 
of  doubtful  authenticity,  a  Compendiaria  orthodoxae  fidei  explicatio  4, 
and  some  fragmenta5.  Cardinal  Pitra  added  the  discourse  delivered 
by  Anastasius,  March  25.,  593,  on  the  occasion  of  his  restoration 
to  the  Church  of  Antioch. 

This  discourse  was  edited  by  Pitra,  Iuris  eccles.  Graecorum  hist,  et 
monum.,  Rome,  1868,  ii.  251—257.  On  the  works  of  Anastasius  in  general 
cf.  Fabriaus-Harles ,  Bibl.  Gr.,  x.  595-600  (=  Migne,  PG.,  lxxxix.  1293 
to  1300),  and  for  later  manuscript-references  Pitra,  1.  c,  ii.  243  ff.  An 
edition  of  the  «Demonstration  of  the  grandeur  of  the  priestly  dignity», 
unknown  outside  of  Russia,  was  described  by  A.  Papa dopulos-Ker aniens, 
in  AvoiAexTa  lepoaoXujxitt/^  ra/ooX^iac,  St.  Petersburg,  1891,  i.  15.  —  The 
religious  Conference  at  the  Court  of  the  Sassanids,  attributed  in  some 
manuscripts  to  Anastasius,  patriarch  of  Antioch,  was  certainly  composed 
during  the  fifth  century  by  some  unknown  person  in  Asia  Minor  or  Syria. 

1  Evagr.,  Hist,  eccl.,  iv.  39— 41 ;  cf.  §   102,  3. 

a  Migne,  PG.,  lxxxix.  1309— 1362. 

b  Ib.,  lxxxix.    1361  — 1398,  Greek  and  Latin. 

4  Ib.,  lxxxix.    1399-1404.  5  Ib.,  lxxxix     1405-1408. 


§    107.      DOGMATIC    AND    POLEMICAL   WRITERS.  575 

This  apologetical  romance  develops  the  truth  ot  the  Christian  religion  in 
an  imaginary  controversial  dialogue,  supposed  to  have  taken  place  in 
Persia  in  presence  of  King  Arrhinatus.  It  has  been  edited  by  A.  Vas- 
siliev,  Moscow,  1893;  A.  Wirth,  Aus  orientalischen  Chroniken,  Frankfort, 
1894,  pp.  143 — 210;  E.  Bratke,  Leipzig,  1899,  in  Texte  u.  Untersuchungen, 
xix,  new  series,  iv,  3  a.  Cf.  C.  M.  Kaufmann,  in  Revue  d'hist.  ecclesiast. 
(1901),  ii.  529 — 548.  Cf.  S.  Vailhe,  Diet,  de  Theologie,  Paris  1903,  i.  1166. 
—  Anastasius  II.,  patriarch  of  Antioch  (599 — 609),  suffered  death  at  the 
hands  of  the  Jews  and  is  venerated  by  the  Church  as  a  martyr.  He  trans- 
lated into  Greek  the  Regula  Pastoralis  of  Gregory  the  Great  (§  118,  2), 
but  his  version   seems  to  have  perished;   cf.  Pitra,  1.  c,  ii.  241. 

2.  ST.  EULOGIUS  OF  ALEXANDRIA.  —  Quite  similar  in  character  was 
Eulogius,  patriarch  of  Alexandria  (580 — 607),  likewise  a  warm  friend 
of  Gregory  the  Great.  The  correspondence  of  the  pope  contains 
many  flattering  expressions  of  esteem  and  admiration  for  the  person 
of  the  patriarch.  The  latter  devoted  himself  with  particular  zeal  to 
the  theological  refutation  of  the  various  Monophysite  sects.  In  the 
ninth  century  Photius  was  acquainted  with  six  books  of  Eulogius 
against  Novatian  and  concerning  ecclesiastical  discipline:  xarä  Naod- 
zoü  xac  7zep\  olxovojucag1;  two  books  against  Timothy  and  Severus: 
xarä  TcfioÜiov  xdi  Hsuypou,  that  contained  an  exhaustive  defence  of 
the  Epistola  dogmatica  of  Leo  the  Great  to  Flavian 2 ;  a  work 
against  Theodosius  and  Severus:  xarä  deodoacoo  xac  Isuijpoo,  also 
a  defence  of  the  Epistola  dogmatica3;  a  philippic:  otyjÄlzsütlxoq  Äoyog, 
against  Theodosians  and  Gaianites  4,  and  eleven  treatises :  Xdfoi,  mostly 
dogmatico-polemical  in  character5.  To-day  there  are  extant  only  a 
sermon  «on  the  Palm-branches  and  the  foal  of  the  ass»6,  and  several 
fragments7,  among  which  may  be  reckoned  the:  Capita  Septem  de 
duabus  naturis  Domini  Deique8. 

The  titles  of  some  of  these  works  become  clearer  when  it  is  remem- 
bered that  after  the  death  of  Timothy,  the  Monophysite  (Severian)  patri- 
arch of  Alexandria  (536),  the  opposing  sects  of  Severiani  and  Julianists 
(§  99>  3i  I02>  2)  chose  each  their  own  patriarch,  the  Severians  Theo- 
dosius, and  the  Julianists  Gaianus.  Thereby  Severians  and  Julianists  became 
respectively  Theodosians  and  Gaianites.  Extracts  from  a  work  of  St.  Eu- 
logius on  the  Trinity  and  incarnation:  irspt  t?js  0710?  xptaoo?  xdl  itept  xr^ 
ftsfe  oixovojxtac,  were  published  by  O.  Bardenhewer,  in  Theof.  Quartalschr. 
(1896),  lxxviii.  353—401;  cf.  7.  Stiglmayr,  in  Katholik  (1897),  ii.  93— 96. 
Photius  does  not  mention  this  work.  A  fragment  of  it  (the  beginning) 
was  edited  by  Mai,  and  is  found  in  Migne  (1.  c,  2939—2944).  —  Euse- 
bius,  bishop  of  Thessalonica  and  a  contemporary  of  Gregory  the  Great, 
dedicated  his  refutation  of  Aphthartodocetism  to  a  certain  monk  Andrew 
who  had  been  misled  by  this  heresy.  Photius  describes  its  ten  books 
(Bibl.  Cod.  162).  —  Early  in  the  seventh  century  Timotheus,  a  priest  and 
sacristan   (skeuophylax)    on  Constantinople,    composed   a   little   treatise  on 

1  Bibl.   Cod.    182  208  280.  -  lb.,   Cod.   225.  3  Ib.,  Cod.  226. 

4  Ib.,  Cod.   227.  5  Ib.,   Cod.  230. 

6  Migne,  PG.,  lxxxvi  2,   2913 — 2938.  7  lb.,,  lxxxvi   2,   2937—2964. 

ö  Ib.,   lxxxvi  2,   2937 — 2940. 


Cyß  THIRD    PERIOD.      FIRST    SECTION. 

the  reconciliation  of  heretics:  iwpl  twv  rpoaspyojiivu^  t$  a-fia  Ixxtfjofy 
[Migne,  PG.,  lxxxvi  1,  n— 68);  it  offers  an  instructive  view  of  the  activity 
of  heretics  at  this  time.  Timotheus  distinguishes  three  groups  of  heretics : 
the  first  must  be  baptized,  the  second  must  be  confirmed,  the  third  needs 
to  abjure  its  erroneous  tenets. 

3.  ST.  MAXIMUS  CONFESSOR.  — Maximus  surnamed  «the  Confessor», 
o  bjioloyqrr^  was  one  of  the  first  to  uphold  the  banner  of  the 
orthodox  faith  in  its  conflict  with  Monotheletism ;  his  name  ranks 
high  in  the  patristic  annals  of  the  seventh  century.  His  life  is 
shrouded  in  some  obscurity.  The  anonymous  Vita  S.  Maximi^, 
written  by  an  unknown  admirer  of  the  Saint,  is  very  incomplete. 
Maximus  was  the  son  of  noble  parents  and  was  born  about  580,  at 
Constantinople.  His  abilities  and  learning  attracted  the  attention  of 
the  emperor  Heraclius  (610 — 641),  who  made  him  first  imperial  se- 
cretary: npwTOQ  U7ioypa.(pebz  twv  ßaffMtxcuv  UTrofiur^JLarcov.  About  630 
he  abandoned  his  worldly  career  and  withdrew  across  the  Bosphorus 
to  the  monastery  of  Chrysopolis  (now  Scutari),  where  he  seems  to 
have  soon  reached  the  dignity  of  abbot.  We  meet  him  at  Alexandria 
in  633,  in  the  company  of  the  monk  Sophronius,  afterwards  patriarch 
of  Jerusalem  (§  104,  2;  105,  3).  In  July  645,  he  took  part  in  a 
colloquy  held  in  Northern  Africa,  probably  at  Carthage,  in  presence 
of  the  imperial  procurator  Gregory  and  many  bishops.  The  subject 
of  this  colloquy  was  Monotheletism,  and  his  principal  opponent  was 
Pyrrhus,  the  Monothelite  ex-patriarch  of  Constantinople.  The  acts  of 
the  discussion  are  extant2,  and  are  accounted  among  the  most  im- 
portant documents  regarding  the  Monothelite  heresy.  Maximus  won 
a  signal  victory  over  Pyrrhus ;  the  latter  was  obliged  to  acknowledge 
his  error  and  to  accept  the  doctrine  of  two  wills  in  Christ.  In  con- 
sequence of  this  event  many  diocesan  synods  were  held  in  Africa  and 
the  adjacent  islands  (646),  in  which  Monotheletism  was  categorically 
denounced  and  rejected.  From  Africa,  Maximus  went  to  Rome  where 
he  continued  his  warfare  for  the  faith  of  the  Church.  He  it  was 
who  induced  Pope  Martin  I.  (649—655)  to  hold  the  famous  Lateran 
Council  of  649,  in  which  Monotheletism  and  all  its  adherents  were  con- 
demned, together  with  the  Ecthesis  and  the  Typus  in  which  edicts, 
respectively,  Heraclius  (638)  and  Constans  II.  (648)  had  taken  sides 
with  the  Monothelites.  Constans  was  violently  offended,  and  poured 
forth  the  vials  of  his  wrath  both  on  Pope  Martin  and  his  adviser. 
In  the  summer  of  653  Maximus  was  imprisoned  at  Rome  with  two 
disciples,  the  monk  Anastasius  and  the  apocrisiarius  (envoy)  Anasta- 
sius.  Shortly  afterward  all  three  were  brought  as  prisoners  to  Con- 
stantinople. Their  trial  took  place  in  655;  its  proceedings  are  still 
preserved  3.     Maximus  was  exiled  to  Bizya   in  Thrace,    and    his   two 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xc.  67-110.  2  Ib.,  xci.   287-354. 

Ib.,  xc.   109—130;  PL.,  cxxix.  603—622. 


§    I07«     DOGMATIC    AND    POLEMICAL   WRITERS.  577 

disciples,  respectively,  to  Perberis  and  Mesembria.  It  was  in  vain 
that  in  the  following  year  attempts  were  made  at  Bizya  to  induce 
Maximus  to  accept  the  Typus1.  Early  in  662,  the  three  confessors 
were  brought  back  to  Constantinople  and  tried  before  a  synod.  Their 
courage  was  equal  to  the  occasion;  nor  did  they  yield  when  the 
city-prefect  was  ordered  to  scourge  them  and  tear  their  blasphemous 
tongues  out  by  the  roots  and  to  cut  off  their  right  hands.  In  this 
mutilated  condition  they  were  led  through  every  ward  of  Constan- 
tinople, and  then  condemned  to  perpetual  exile  in  Lazica  on  the 
eastern  coast  of  the  Black  Sea.  Maximus  died  there  Aug.  13.,  662; 
the  monk  Anastasius  had  already  passed  away  on  July  24.,  662 ; 
the  apocrisiarius  Anastasius  lingered  on  until  Oct.  11.,  666.  In  680, 
the  doctrine  of  the  two  wills  in  Christ,  so  brutally  persecuted  in 
the  persons  of  these  martyrs,  was  formally  recognized  in  the  city 
of  Constantinople  by  the  Sixth  General  Council.  —  Despite  his 
busy  and  troubled  life,  Maximus  found  time  to  compose  a  great 
many  theological  works.  These  writings  have  always  been  highly 
appreciated  both  in  East  and  West,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  their 
contents  and  their  grandiloquent  style  make  it  often  difficult  to  under- 
stand the  author's  meaning.  —  In  the  edition  of  Combefis  these 
works  are:  a)  a  long  treatise:  De  varus  Scripturae  Sacrae  quae- 
stionibus  ac  dubiis  ad  Thalassium2,  65  questions  and  answers  con- 
cerning difficult  scriptural  passages.  The  exegesis  is  generally  alle- 
gorical or  anagogical.  Frequently  the  biblical  text  is  merely  a  basis 
or  connective  for  theologico-mystical  considerations.  Akin  to  this 
work  are  others:  Quaestiones  et  Responsiones 8,  Ad  Theopemptum 
scholasticum 4,  Expositio  in  Psalmum  lix 5,  Orationis  dominicae  brevis 
expositio6.  The  Greek  Catenae  contain  fragments  of  other  exegetical 
works  of  Maximus.  b)  He  also  wrote  commentaries  on  the  writings 
of  the  Pseudo-Areopagite,  and  on  several  homilies  of  Gregory  of 
Nazianzus:  Scholia  in  opera  S.  Dionysii  Areopagitae 7 ,  De  varus 
difficilibus  locis  SS.  Dionysii  et  Gregorii  Theologi8,  Ambigua  in 
S.  Gregorium  Theologum 9.  He  esteemed  the  Areopagitica  very 
highly,  and  it  is  largely  to  his  influence  that  we  must  trace  the 
interest  and  the  admiration  of  the  Middle  Ages  for  these  works; 
cf.  §  100,  2.  c)  Combefis  has  collected,  under  the  heading:  Opuscula 
theologica  et  polemica,  a  series  of  polemico-dogmatic  treatises 10  most 
of  which  are  anti-Monophysite  or  anti-Monothelite.  One  little  treatise11 
deals  with   the   procession    of  the  Holy  Ghost.     The:    Dialogi  v   de 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xc.   135—170;  PL.,  cxxix.  625—656. 

2  Ib.,  PG.,  xc.  243—786.  3  Ib.,  xc.   785—856. 

4  Ib.,  xc.   1393— 1400.  5  Ib.,  xc.  855—872.  6  Ib.,  xc.  871—910. 

7  Ib.,  iv.    15—432,  and  527—576,  at  the  end  of  the  Areopagitica. 

8  Ib.,  xci.   1031  — 1060.  9  Ib.,  xci.    1061  — 1418.  10  Ib.,  xci.  9—286. 
11  Ib.,  xci.    133—138. 

Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  37 


r«g  THIRD   PERIOD.      FIRST    SECTION. 

trinitate1  were  at  one  time  commonly  attributed  to  Maximus;  it  is 
now  known  that  they  were  written  before  his  time  (cf.  §78,  8).  The 
treatise:  De  anima2,  discusses  anthropological  questions,  d)  Among 
his  ascetico-moral  writings  the:  Liber  asceticus3  is  justly  famous;  it 
is  a  dialogue  between  an  abbot  and  a  young  monk  on  the  chief  duties 
of  the  spiritual  life,  and  is  followed  by :  Capita  de  caritate,  a  kind 
of  appendix4,  in  which  are  collected  four  hundred  sententiae,  mostly 
of  an  ethical  character.  A  similar  collection  is  entitled :  Capita  alia 5. 
The  contents  of  two  other  collections  are  at  once  ethical,  dogmatic 
and  mystical:  Capita  theologica  et  oeconomica  200 6,  Diversa  capita 
theologica  et  oeconomica  500 7.  The  most  extensive  of  the  collec- 
tions are  his:  Capita  Theologica,  or:  Sermones  per  electa,  or:  Loci 
communes8:  extracts  from  the  Scripture,  the  Fathers  and  profane 
writers,  an  anthology  such  as  the  later  Greek,  especially  monastic, 
students  and  writers  loved  to  compile,  and  to  use  with  much  industry 
and  devotion.  It  must  be  added  that  the  origin  of  this  particular 
compilation  is  still  problematical  and  much  disputed.  Holl  is  of 
opinion  that  Maximus  was  really  its  first  compiler,  that  later  on  it  was 
reconstructed  and  enlarged  by  additions  to  its  original  biblical  and 
patristic  contents,  e)  Finally,  mention  must  be  made  of  forty- five 
letters 9,  some  of  which  might  well  be  placed  among  the  theological 
treatises  of  Maximus;  a:  Mystagogia,  fiuaxaytoyw. 10,  or  considerations  on 
the  symbolico-mystical  meaning  of  the  Church  and  of  specific  liturgical 
actions;  three  Hymns11;  a  Computus  ecclesiasticus 12  or  instruction  for 
the  calculation  of  ecclesiastical  feasts  and  on  chronology  (both  biblical 
and  profane);  a  Chronologia  succ'incta  vitae  Christi  (lacking  in  Migne), 
really  a  summary  of  a  larger  work.  —  Maximus  is  certainly  one  of 
the  most  acute  theologians  and  profound  mystics  of  the  Greek  Church. 
In  speculative  depth  and  dialectic  acuteness  he  surpasses  his  master, 
the  Pseudo-Areopagite.  There  is  reason  to  regret  that  he  did  not 
expound  his  own  ideas  systematically  and  methodically,  instead  of 
throwing  them  out  in  aphoristic  sentences  or  as  supplementary  to 
the  text  of  other  writers.  The  God-Man  is  always  the  centre  of  his 
dogmatic  teachings.  The  Logos  is  for  him  the  origin  and  end  of 
all  created  beings.  The  history  of  the  world  develops  along  two 
great  lines :  the  first  is  the  Incarnation  (aupxwaiQ)  of  God  predestined 
from  the  beginning  and  accomplished  historically  in  the  fulness  of 
time ;  the  second  is  the  deification  (Mühjiq)  of  man  that  begins  with 
the  Incarnation  of  God  and  will  be  finally  accomplished  through  the 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xxviii.   11 15— 1286,  among  the  works  of  St.  Athanasius. 

2  Ib.,  xci.  353—362.  3  Ib.,  xc.  911-956. 

*  Ib.,  xc.  959—1080.  &  Ib.,  xc.   1401  — 1462. 

6  lb.,  xc.   1083— 1 1 76.  7  Ib.,  xc.   1177  —  1392. 

8  Ib.,  xci.   721— 1018.  »  Ib.,  xci.  363—650. 

*°  Ib.,  xci.  657—718.  \\  Ib.,  xci.   1417-1424. 

Ib.,  xix.   121 7—1280,  among    the  works  of  the  ecclesiastical  historian  Eusebius. 


§    107.     DOGMATIC    AND    POLEMICAL   WRITERS. 


579 


restoration  of  the  divine  image  in  man.  As  the  beginning  of  the 
new  life  and  the  second  Adam,  Christ  is  necessarily  true  God  and 
perfect  man.  The  difference  of  the  natures  in  Christ  does  not  imply 
a  division  of  personality,  nor  does  the  unity  of  the  latter  imply  a 
commingling  of  the  natures.  On  the  contrary,  given  two  whole  and 
perfect  natures,  there  must  be  also  two  wills  and  two  natural  acti- 
vities or  energies.  However,  it  is  only  the  will  in  itself,  the  will  as 
such,  that  is  essential  to  a  perfect  nature;  that  it  should  act  in  one 
way  or  another  (sq  yvcbfirj),  belongs  to  the  person.  «The  incarnate 
Logos  possessed,  therefore,  as  man,  the  will  belonging  to  human 
nature),  but  it  was  directed  and  guided  by  His  divine  will»  :  rw  adroo 
Seixw  Setfjuan  xtvou/jievov  re  xai  TDizoufivjov 1. 

A  complete  edition  of  the  works  of  St.  Maximus  was  undertaken  by 
Fr.  Combefis,  O.  P.,  Paris,  1675,  2  vols.  The  third  volume  was  never 
published;  it  was  to  have  contained  the  scholia  on  the  works  of  the 
PseudoAreopagite.  The  Combefis  edition  is  reprinted  in  Migne,  PG.,  xc 
to  xci,  Paris,  i860.  The  scholia  on  the  Areopagitica  may  be  found  in 
Migne,  PG.,  iv,  reprinted  from  the  Venice  edition  of  the  Areopagite,  1755 
to  1756  (cf.  §  100,  1).  The  two  other  works  of  St  Maximus  on  the 
Areopagite  and  St.  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  were  for  the  first  time  com- 
pletely edited  by  Fr.  Oehler ,  Anecdota  Graeca,  Halle,  1857,  i,  and  re- 
printed in  Migne,  1.  c,  xci.  Bratke  edited  the  Chronologia  succincta  vitae 
Christi,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  Kirchengesch.  (1892 — 1893),  xiii.  382 — 384.  On 
the  Scripta  S.  Maximi  inedita  vel  deperdita  see  Fabricius-Harles ,  Bibl. 
Gr.,  ix.  676 — 677  [Migne,  PG.,  xc.  49—50).  In  the  manuscripts  and  in 
the  Combefis  edition  several  works  of  Maximus,  e.  g.  De  varus  scripturae 
sacrae  quaestionibus  ac  dubiis  ad  Thalassium,  Capita  de  caritate,  and 
others,  are  accompanied  by  brief  scholia  of  unknown  provenance.  On  the 
Capita  theologica  (Sermones  per  electa,  Loci  communes)  see  K.  Holl,  in 
Texte  und  Untersuchungen  (1896),  xvi,  new  series  i  1,  342  ff . ;  cf.  ib.  (1899), 
xx,  new  series  v  2,  xviii  ff.,  and  A.  Ehrhard,  Zu  den  Sacra  Parallela  des 
Johannes  Damascenus  und  dem  Florilegium  des  Maximos,  in  Byzant.  Zeit- 
schrift (1901),  x.  394 — 415.  The  role  of  St.  Maximus  in  the  Monothelite 
controversies  is  described  by  Hefele,  Konziliengeschichte,  2.  ed.,  iii.  189 
to  247.  The  doctrine  of  our  Saint  is  discussed  by  the  following  writers: 
H.  Weser ,  S.  Maximi  Confessoris  praecepta  de  incarnatione  Dei  et  dei- 
ficatione  hominis  exponuntur  et  examinantur  (Diss,  inaug.),  Berlin,  1869; 
J.  Bach,  Die  Dogmengeschichte  des  Mittelalters  vom  christologischen  Stand- 
punkte, Vienna,  1873,  i.  15 — 49:  «Maximus  Confessor»;  A.  Preuss,  Ad 
Maximi  Confessoris  de  Deo  hominisque  deificatione  doctrinam  adnotationes 
(Progr.),  Schneeberg,  1894,  i.  E.  Michaud,  St.  Maxime  le  Confesseur  et 
l'apocatastase,  in  Revue  internat.  de  theol.  (1902),  pp.  257 — 272.  Cf.  Wage- 
mann, in  Herzog's  Real-Encyklopädie  f.  protest.  Theol.  u.  Kirche  (1866), 
Suppl.  II,  xx.  114— 146;  2.  ed.  (1881),  ix.  430—443,  an  excellent  article, 
with  a  copious  bibliography  of  the  «Confessor».  —  The  two  companions  in 
martyrdom  of  St.  Maximus  have  left  each  one  letter,  but  extant  only  in  the 
Latin  version.  The  letter  of  Anastasius  monachus  is  written  to  the  monks 
of  Calaris,  and  treats  of  the  two  wills  in  Christ  [Migne,  PG.,  xc.  133—136; 
PL.,  cxxix.  623—626),  while  that  of  Anastasius  Apocrisiarius  is  written  to 
Theodosius,  a  priest  of  Gangra,  and  describes  the  sufferings  of  the  three  con- 

1  Ex  tract,  de  operationibus  et  voluntatibus :  Migne,  PG.,  xci.  48. 

37* 


Cgo  THIRD    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

fessors  and  quotes  testimonia  of  Fathers  against  the  Monotheletism  (Migne, 
PG.,  xc.  173—194).  Cardinal  Mai  describes,  Script,  vet.  nova  Coll.  vii  1, 
206  b  [Migne,  PG.,  lxxxix.  1191 — 1192),  a  manuscript-letter  of  the  Apocri- 
siarius  to  the  monks  of  Ascalon  against  Monophysitism  and  Monotheletism. 

4.  ANASTASIUS  SINAITA.  —  Anastasius  Sinaita  is  another  of  those 
Greek  ecclesiastics  who  displayed  a  truly  apostolic  activity  amid 
severe  vicissitudes.  He  was  a  priest,  a  monk,  and  abbot  of  Mount 
Sinai  monastery,  but  quitted  his  solitude  to  dispute  in  Egypt  and 
Syria  against  heretics  and  Jews.  Kumpfmüller  has  shown  (1865)  that 
before  his  appearance  at  Alexandria  (640)  he  had  already  entered 
the  arena  against  Monophysitism,  and  that  he  was  still  living  after 
700.  If  his  life  is  shrouded  in  much  obscurity,  equally  uncertain  are 
the  number  and  character  of  his  writings.  The  unedited  material  is 
copious,  and  awaits  some  scholar  to  collect  all  the  manuscripts  and  to 
sift  their  contents  critically.  The  best  edition  is  that  of  Migne 1  and 
contains  three  large  works:  A  Guide  (odypk)2  or  introduction  to 
the  defence  of  Christian  truth  against  the  errors  of  the  time,  especially 
the  many  ramifications  of  Monophysitism;  Questions  and  answers 
(Ipcorijaeic,  xat  ärroxptcrstg)3,  concerning  one  hundred  and  fifty-four 
theological  points  (some  of  them,  however,  certainly  spurious);  An- 
agogical  considerations  on  the  Hexaemeron  fslg  zijv  Tcvtofxdrtthv  dv- 
ayioyrtv  rTjQ  k$a7]p£pou  xtlgbcoq)*  in  twelve  books,  the  first  eleven  in 
a  Latin  version  only.  Then  follow  a  discourse  on  Holy  Communion  5 ; 
two  on  the  sixth  Psalm6;  two  treatises  on  the  creation  of  man  to 
the  image  of  God7,  the  first  of  them  being  only  a  fragment  and 
attributed  to  a  much  earlier  author;  a  fragment  of  a  collection  of 
patristic  evidence  against  heretics8.  Finally  there  are  some  doubtful 
or  spurious  works 9  and  a  few  small  fragments10.  Three  new  works 
were  published  by  Pitra:  a  short  account  of  the  heresies  that  had 
arisen  since  the  time  of  Christ,  with  the  synods  assembled  to  refute 
them;  a  compendious  account  of  the  Christian  faith;  and  a  treatise 
on  the  liturgical  character  of  Wednesday  and  Friday. 

The  person  and  writings  of  Anastasius  are  fully  described  in  J.  B.  Kumpf- 
müller, De  Anastasio  Sinaita  (Diss,  inaug.),  Würzburg,  1865.  Cf.  6".  Vailht,  in 
Dictionnaire  de  Theologie,  Paris,  1903,  i.  1167-1168.  Valuable  information 
concerning  the  manuscripts  of  our  Anastasius  and  of  other  writers  of  the 
same  name  is  found  in  the  preface  (pp.  243-249)  of  Pitra  to  the  three 
works  of  Anastasius,  first  edited  in  his  Iuris  eccl.  Graecorum  historia  et 
monumenta  Rome,  1868,  ii.  257-275.  In  'Ava'Xsxxa  fepaaoXüfUTCxrft  atrr/oo- 
^vIa  P*ersI>urg>  l89i>  PP-  400-404,  A.  Papadopulos-Kerameus 
Published  under  the  name  of  the  Sinaita  a  fragment  it$  ^«ftpfe*.  The 
I154)  Questions  and  Replies  were  first  edited  in  Greek  by  J.  Gretser,  S.  J., 

1  PG    lxxxix  2  Ib>  lxxxix<  35__3IO  3  Ib)  lxxxix   3II__824> 

*  Ib.,  lxxxix.  851-1078.  *  Ibi>  kxxix    825_8 

lb,  lxxxix.   1077-1144.  7  Ib.,  lxxxix.   II43-I150   1151-H80. 

Ib.,      XXXIX.     II79-II90.  3    Ib.,    lxxxix.     II9I-I282. 

Ib.,  lxxxix.   1281  —  1288. 


§    107.     DOGMATIC    AND    POLEMICAL   WRITERS.  58 1 

Ingolstadt,  1617.  The  number  of  the  questions  varies  in  the  manuscripts. 
Four  «questions»  wanting  in  the  Greiser  edition,  and  taken  almost  entire 
from  the  commentary  on  Daniel  by  Hippolytus  were  published  from  a  Munich 
codex  by  H.  Achelis,  Hippolytstudien,  Leipzig,  1897,  pp.  83—88.  On  the 
compilation  Antiquorum  patrum  doctrina  de  Verbi  incarnatione  cf.  §  102,  2, 
and  D.  Serruys,  in  Melanges  d'archeologie  et  d'histoire  (1902),  xxii.  157  f., 
who  restores  it  to  Anastasius.  Kumpfmüller  shows  (pp.  147  f.)  that  for 
intrinsic  reasons  the  disputes  with  the  Jews  \Migne,  PG.,  lxxxix.  1203  to 
1282)  cannot  have  been  written  before  the  ninth  century.  They  make 
use  of  the  «Dialogue  of  the  Jews  Papiscus  and  Philo  with  a  monk»  com- 
posed probably  in  Egypt,  about  700,  and  published  by  A.  C.  McGiffert, 
A  Dialogue  between  a  Christian  and  a  Jew,  entitled:  dcvxtßoXr)  IlaTUJxou  xai 
<I>iX<ovo?  'louoauov  irpoc  jxovayov  xtva  (Diss,  inaug.),  New  York,  1889;  cf.  E.  J. 
Goodspeed,  in  The  American  Journal  of  Theology  (1900),  iv.  796—802. 
However,  Anastasius  himself  asserts,  in  the  sixth  book  of  his  Hexaemeron 
[Migne,  PG.,  lxxxix.  933;  Greek  text  in  Pitra,  1.  c,  pp.  244  f.),  that  he 
had  written  treatises  against  the  Jews.  F.  Nau,  Les  recits  inedits  du 
moine  Anastase.  Contribution  k  l'histoire  du  Sinai  au  commencement  du 
VII.  siecle  (French  version),  Paris,  1902,  and  Le  texte  grec  des  recits  du 
moine  Anastase  sur  les  saints  peres  du  Sinai,  in  Oriens  Christianus  (1902), 
ii.  58 — 89:  historico-ascetical  narratives  of  our  Anastasius  about  the  monks 
of  Mount  Sinai.  In  Revue  de  l'Orient  chre'tien  (1901),  vi.  444—452, 
S.  Putrides  attributes  to  the  Sinaita,  said  to  be  the  sole  hymnographer 
from  Mount  Sinai,  the  funeral  hymn  discovered  by  Pitra  at  Grottaferrata 
(§  105,  2);  cf.  D.  Serruys,  Anastasiana,  in  Melanges,  1.  c. ,  157 — 207. 
F.  Nau,  Le  texte  grec  des  recits  utiles  ä  Fame  d' Anastase  (Sinaita),  in 
Oriens  Christianus  (1903),  pp.  56 — 90.  —  According  to  Le  Quien,  Stephen 
of  Bostra  wrote  a  large  work  against  the  Jews,  xata  'louöauov,  early  in 
the  eighth  century;  some  fragments  of  it,  concerning  the  veneration  of 
the  images  of  the  Saints,  were  made  known  by  J.  M.  Mercati,  in  Theol. 
Quartalschr.  (1895),  lxxvii.  662 — 668. 

5.  ST.  GERMANUS  OF  CONSTANTINOPLE.  —  Germanus  was  already  an 
aged  man  when  the  Iconoclastic  conflict  broke  out  at  Constantinople 
(726).  He  had  been  made  patriarch  in  715,  but  was  obliged  to  quit 
his  see  in  730  by  order  of  the  Iconoclast  emperor  Leo  the  Isaurian. 
He  died  in  733  at  the  age  of  ninety-eight.  The  Iconoclast  concilia- 
bulum  of  754,  convoked  by  the  emperor  Constantine  Copronymus, 
anathematized  his  memory.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Seventh  Ecu- 
menical Council  of  Nicaea  (787)  eulogized  not  only  his  holy  life  and 
orthodox  doctrine,  but  also  the  zeal  with  which  he  refuted  by  his 
writings  the  false  teachings  of  the  heretics1.  Several  of  his  works 
seem  to  have  perished.  There  are  extant:  De  haeresibus  et  synodis2, 
composed  shortly  after  the  first  edict  of  the  Isaurian  against  the 
images,  i.  e.  after  726;  a  dialogue:  De  vitae  termino3;  Pro  decretis 
concilii  Chalcedonensis  epistola  Graecorum  ad  Armenios4;  Epistolae 
dogmaticae 5,    some  of  them  very  important  for  the  history  of  Icono- 

1  Cone.  Nie.  II.,  act.   6;  Mansi,  1.  c.,  xiii.  356—357. 

2  Migne,  PG.,  xcviii.  39 — 88. 

3  Ib.,  xcviii.  89 — 132.  4  Ib.,  xcviii.    135  — 146;  in  Latin  only. 
5  Ib.,  xcviii.    147 — 222. 


^82  THIRD    PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

clasm;  Orationes1,  nine  in  all,  seven  of  which  are  on  the  Blessed 
Virgin;  Rerum  ecclesiasticarum  contemplatio 2,  an  exposition  of  the 
liturgy,  (of  very  doubtful  authenticity) ;  some  liturgical  hymns 3,  and 
a  few  minor  writings. 

For  the  life  of  Germanus  cf.  Hefele ,  Konziliengeschichte,  2.  ed.,  iii. 
363  ff.  372  ff.  380  ff.;  and  for  his  sermons  A.  Ballerini,  Sylloge  monumen- 
torum  ad  mysterium  conceptionis  Immaculatae  Virginis  Deiparae  illustran- 
dum,  Rome,  1854,  ii  1,  243 — 283.  Three  Idiomela  (§  105,  3;  lacking  in 
Migne)  are  current  under  the  name  of  Germanus;  they  were  edited  by 
Christ  and  Paranikas,  Anthologia  graeca  carminum  christianorum,  Leipzig, 
187 1,  pp.  98 — 99;  cf.  Proleg.  xliii.  Photius  describes  (Bibl.  Cod.  233)  a 
lost  work  of  St.  Germanus  entitled  'AvtoctcoSotixäc  \  dvoiteuroj  («retributive 
or  genuine»,  i.  e.  genuine  retribution).  In  this  work  he  undertook  to  prove 
that  Gregory  of  Nyssa  had  never  taught,  as  many  asserted,  the  final  sal- 
vation of  all  reasonable  creatures,  even  of  wicked  men  and  angels;  he 
maintained  that  the  three  works  of  Gregory  in  which  he  appeared  to 
defend  this  doctrine,  had  been  interpolated  by  heretics,  viz.  the  dialogue : 
De  anima  et  resurrectione ,  the  greater  Catechesis,  and  the  De  perfecta 
vita  (?).  Cf.  §  69,  8.  Cozza-Luzi  maintains  that  S.  Germanus  is  the  author  of 
Historia  Mystica  Ecclesiae  Catholicae.  Cf.  Nova  Patrum  Bibl.  x.  11,  1 — 28. 
One  of  the  earliest  Christian  apologies  against  Islam  is  found  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  Armenian  Ghevond  (eighth  century),  Tiflis,  1887.  It  is  attributed 
to  Leo  the  Isaurian,  but  is  probably  the  work  of  Germanus. 

§  108.    St.  John   of  Damascus. 

i.  HIS  POSITION  and  SIGNIFICANCE.  —  In  John  of  Damascus  the 
ancient  Greek  Church  beheld  once  more  a  mighty  intellectual  leader, 
one  who  stood  out  all  the  more  prominently  because  of  the  uni- 
versal decay  into  which  all  contemporary  thought  was  falling.  Soon 
after  him,  the  Schism  begins  with  Photius.  John  is  above  all  a  ga- 
therer of  the  ecclesiastical  wisdom  of  the  past;  he  considers  it  his 
chief  duty  to  construct  a  large  and  useful  garner  in  which  shall 
be  found  all  knowledge,  doctrinal,  ascetical,  exegetical  and  historic- 
al. The  entire  East,  it  is  clear,  was  conscious  that  the  acme  of  in- 
dependent theological  production  had  been  reached.  It  was,  there- 
fore, the  labors  of  an  encyclopaedist  that  John  undertook  when  he 
resolved  to  systematize  within  fixed  limits  the  formal  teachings  of 
the  councils  and  the  doctrinal  testimony  of  the  illustrious  theologians 
of  former  times.  His  great  masterpiece  of  theological  learning  has 
been  always  looked  on  as  a  faithful  mirror  of  the  traditions  of  the 
£qC  n  u  J**"  Moreover'  the  decrees  of  the  Sixth  General  Council 
(680)  had  rounded  out,  substantially,  the  development  of  dogmatic 
thought  among  the  Greeks.  Henceforth  no  other  master  mind  arose 
in  the  East  that  could  at  all  compare  with  the  author  of  the  «Foun- 
tain ot  wisdom».    This  work  at  once  attained  a  classical    reputation 

3  ™gne'  PG"  xcviii-  22I-384.  *  Ib.,  xcviii.  383-454. 

8  Ib.,  xcviii.  453—454.  *     *3* 


§    Io8.      ST.   JOHN   OF    DAMASCUS.  583 

in  all  the  Oriental  churches,  and  has  retained  the  same  to  the  pre- 
sent day.  We  have  already  seen  (§  105,  6)  that  John  was  also  a 
distinguished  liturgical  poet;  his  hymns  eclipsed  the  compositions 
even  of  a  Romanos  and  supplanted  them  in  the  liturgical  books  of 
the  Greeks.  To  his  laurels  must  also  be  added  the  services  render- 
ed by  him  in  the  last  great  doctrinal  controversy  of  the  Greek 
Church,  i.  e.  the  Iconoclastic  conflict.  From  the  safe  refuge  of  the 
Caliph's  court  at  Damascus  he  replied  to  the  edicts  of  Leo  the  Isau- 
rian,  and  defended  with  apostolic  energy  the  cause  of  the  sacred 
images  in  writings  that  continue  to  attract  the  admiration  of  posterity. 

2.  HIS  LIFE.  —  But  little  is  known  of  the  life  of  John  of  Da- 
mascus. The  oldest  Vita  I  dates  from  the  tenth  century,  and  exhibits 
much  legendary  material.  Even  the  dates  of  his  birth  and  death 
are  unknown.  It  seems  certain,  however,  that  he  belonged  to  a 
native  Christian  family  in  Damascus,  engaged  in  the  civil  service 
of  the  Caliphs  as  hereditary  administrators  of  the  revenues  of  Syria. 
In  token  of  this  honorable  origin  he  bore  also  the  Arabic  name 
Mansur,  which  his  enemy  Constantine  Copronymos  (741 — 775)  dis- 
torted into  Manzeros  (ßlävfypog,  cf.  "Trttft  =  bastard)2.  Both  John 
and  his  adopted  brother  Cosmas  were  educated  by  Cosmas,  a  Sici- 
lian monk  (§  105,  6).  It  is  not  known  when  he  entered  the  service 
of  the  Caliph  at  Damascus,  or  when  he  abandoned  it.  It  is  probable 
that  he  had  begun  his  theological  career  as  early  as  726,  certainly 
before  730.  After  that  date,  apparently,  he  retired  with  his  brother 
Cosmas  to  the  monastery  of  St.  Saba  at  Jerusalem.  John  V.,  patri- 
arch of  Jerusalem  (f  735),  conferred  priesthood  on  him;  his  remain- 
ing years  were  certainly  devoted  to  piety  and  ecclesiastical  learn- 
ing. He  seems  to  have  died  also  at  Jerusalem  in  the  monastery  of 
St.  Saba.  The  Iconoclastic  pseudo-Synod  of  Constantinople  (754) 
anathematized  the  patriarch  Germanus  (§  105,  5),  a  certain  George  of 
Cyprus,  and  four  several  times  our  John  under  the  name  of  Mansur; 
all  three  were  evidently  no  longer  among  the  living,  for  the  acts 
of  the  Synod  state  that  the  Holy  Trinity  had  removed  them :  yj  rptaq 
touq  rpelc,  xaftelfav8.  In  ySy  the  Seventh  General  Council  of  Nicaea 
rehabilitated  the  outraged  memories  of  these  defenders  of  the  faith, 
and  paid  the  highest  tribute  to  John  as  a  champion  of  the  holy 
images4.  Theophanes  wrote  (813)  that  in  his  time  John  was  called 
Chrysorrhoas  {ypoooppoaq  =  gold-outpouring)  and  rightly  «because 
of  that  grace  of  the  spirit  which  shines  like  gold  both  in  his  doc- 
trine and  in  his  life»  5. 

3.  DOGMATIC  WRITINGS.  —  Among  the  writings  of  St.  John  of 
Damascus  the  most  famous  is  his  «Fountain  of  wisdom»   (iryyTj  yvco- 

1  Ib.,  xciv.  429 — 490.  2   Theophanes,  Chronogr.  ad  a.  734. 

3  Cone.  Nie.  II.  act.  6;  Mansi,  1.  c,  xiii.   356.  4  Ib.;   Mansi,  1.  c.,  xiii.   357. 

5  Chronogr.,  1.  c. 


534  THIRD   PERIOD.      FIRST    SECTION. 

aea)Q)\  a  long  work  that  begins  with  a  philosophical  introduction 
{x£(pdXata  <pdooo(piw;  the  titles  of  the  sections  are  not  the  work  of  our 
author),  usually  known  as  Dialectica,  but  mostly  devoted  to  Aristo- 
telian ontology.  A  second  part  is  devoted  to  a  succinct  history  of 
heresies  frept  atpeaecov).  As  far  as  the  Collyridians  (no.  79)  he  copies 
the  «Panarion»  of  Epiphanius  (§71,  2),  and  similarly  other  sources 
for  the  following  period;  he  is  an  original  writer  and  witness  only 
in  the  last  chapters  (no.  101 — 103 :  Islam,  Iconoclasm,  Aposchitae). 
In  the  third  and  last  part  he  expounds  the  orthodox  Christian  faith : 
hooaiQ  äxptßrjQ  ryJQ  dpMofru  niarewQ.  In  all  current  editions  this 
part  is  divided  into  four  books.  The  first  treats  of  God ;  the  second 
of  creation  in  general,  of  angels  and  demons,  of  the  visible  world, 
of  Paradise,  of  man  and  his  faculties,  of  divine  Providence ;  the  third 
discusses  the  Incarnation  at  length,  while  the  fourth  (the  least  orderly 
of  all)  descants  on  the  glory  of  the  God-Man,  baptism  and  the 
Blessed  Eucharist,  the  veneration  of  Saints  and  relics,  the  canon  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  the  presence  of  evil  in  creation,  and 
the  last  things.  In  the  Greek  manuscripts  the  third  book  is  not 
divided  into  four  parts;  such  a  division  was  first  made  in  the  West, 
and  probably  in  imitation  of  the  four  books  of  the  Sentences  of 
Peter  Lombard  (f  1164).  Shortly  before  the  composition  of  the 
latter' s  Sentences,  Burgundio  of  Pisa  (f  1194)  had  made  a  barbarous 
Latin  version  of  the  «Fountain  of  wisdom».  Hence  it  is  certain  that 
Peter  Lombard  borrowed  from  the  Damascene  the  disposition  of 
the  materials  of  his  «Sententiae».  The  Damascene,  in  turn,  had 
imitated  the  outline  of  Christian  doctrine  of  Theodoret  of  Cyrus2. 
The  third  book  is  chiefly  important  as  a  mirror  of  the  theological 
traditions  of  the  Greek  Church.  The  author  frequently  observes3  that 
his  intention  is  merely  to  repeat,  in  a  summary  and  final  way,  the 
teachings  of  former  Councils  and  of  the  approved  Fathers  of  the 
Greek  Church,  particularly  St.  Gregory  ofNazianzus.  The  «Fountain 
of  wisdom»  is  dedicated  to  his  brother,  Cosmas,  bishop  of  Majuma, 
and  was  probably  composed  in  the  latter  years  of  the  life  of  John. 
He  was  already  the  author  of  several  dogmatic  works:  a  long  pro- 
fession of  faith:  ÄtßeUog  7tep\  op&oo  (ppovqparoc,^,  written  at  Da- 
mascus, at  the  request  of  a  bishop  Elias,  until  then  probably  a  Mono- 
physite,  and  offered  by  the  latter  to  Peter,  the  metropolitan  of  Da- 
mascus, as  a  proof  of  his  orthodoxy;  an  elementary  introduction  to 
the  study  of  Christian  doctrine:  daaywyrj  doypdzajv  ozoiyziwur^ ; 
it  touches  slightly  on  all  the  questions  that  are  profoundly  treated 
in  the  first  part  of  the  «Fountain  of  wisdom»;  a  treatise  on  the 
Holy  Trinity:    xsp}    ttjq   ayiag   rpiddoq*,    by   way   of  questions   and 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xciv.  517—1228. 

2  Haer.  fab.  comp.  lib.  5  ;  cf.  §  60,  4;   78,  5-  3  Prol.  and  Part  I,  c.   2. 
Migne,  PG.,  xciv.   1421  — 1432.           *  Ib.,  xcv.  99—112.  6  lb,    xcv.  9—18. 


§    Io8.      ST.  JOHN    OF    DAMASCUS.  585 

answers,  besides  the  doctrine  on  Holy  Trinity  it  treats  also  im- 
portant points  of  Christological  doctrine;  a  fuller  treatise  on  the 
Trisagion:  rrsp}  too  zptaajiou  ujuvou1,  written  to  an  archimandrite, 
in  proof  of  the  assertion  that  the  famous  formula:  Holy  God,  Holy 
Strong  (One),  Holy  Immortal  (One),  did  not  refer  to  the  Son  alone, 
but  to  the  whole  Trinity.  Therefore  the  addition  of  Peter  Fullo 
«who  wast  crucified  for  us»  is  inadmissible.  Other  writings,  of  doubt- 
ful authenticity,  are  attributed  to  him :  a  long  profession  of  faith 
that  has  reached  us  in  Arabic  only2;  a  letter  and  a  homily  usually 
printed  together  under  the  title  «Concerning  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  our  Lord »  3,  since  both  treat  of  the  relation  of  the  Blessed  Eu- 
charist to  the  natural  Body  of  Jesus  Christ.  —  The  treatise  on  those 
who  have  died  in  the  faith:  mp\  zcbv  iv  Ttiazet  x£X0Lfir)p.£vü)v^,  in 
support  of  the  thesis  that  the  faithful  departed  may  be  aided  by 
the  Holy  Mass,  prayers,  alms,  and  other  good  works,  and  two  frag- 
ments that  reject  the  use  of  unleavened  bread  in  the  Mass  as  Judaic 
and  anti-apostolic :  7tep\  rcov  d^upcov  5,  are  without  doubt  spurious. 
The  treatise  on  Confession:  7tep\  igopoloy^ascog6,  an  affirmative 
answer  to  the  question:  Can  one  confess  to  monks  that  are  not 
priests?  is  the  work  of  Simeon  «the  new  theologian»,  who  flourished 
about  966 — 1042. 

4.  POLEMICAL  WORKS.  —  His  polemical  writings  are  also  dog- 
matic in  character.  The  dialogue  against  the  Manichseans:  xazd 
Mavt%aia>v  otdÄoyoQ7,  is  a  detailed  refutation  of  the  Manichsean  dua- 
listic  system  in  the  shape  of  a  conference  between  an  orthodox 
Christian  and  a  follower  of  Manes;  it  was  probably  an  attack  on 
the  Paulicians,  through  whom  the  Manichseans  continued  to  conta- 
minate the  East  in  the  latter  half  of  the  seventh  century.  Similar 
in  tone,  but  less  voluminous,  is  the  dispute  of  the  orthodox  Christian 
John  with  a  Manichaean:  didke&Q^Icodvvou  öpäodo£ou  Ttpbg  Mavt%aiov8, 
first  edited  by  Mai  in  1847.  The  dispute  of  a  Saracen  and  a  Christian: 
StaAegcg  lapaxTjVoo  xac  Xptanavou,  is  mainly  devoted  to  the  defence 
of  the  Incarnation  and  the  refutation  of  fatalism ;  it  is  extant  in  two 
recensions9.  The  fragments  on  dragons  and  on  witches:  nepl  dpaxov- 
zcov,  xep\  OTpuyyayv 10,  are  remnants  of  an  otherwise  unknown  polemic- 
al work  directed  against  the  belief  in  witches,  then  prevalent  among 
the  Jews  and  the  Saracens.  The  anti-Nestorian  and  anti-Monophysite 
arguments  of  the  «Fountain  of  wisdom»  (part  III,  book  3)  are  more 
extensively  treated  in  the  works  against  the  heresy  of  the  Nestorians: 

1  Ib.,  xcv.  21 — 62. 

2  Latin  version  from  the  Arabic,  in  Migne,  PG.,  xcv.  417 — 436. 

3  Ib.,  xcv.  401—412.              *  Ib.,  xcv.  247—278.  5  Ib.,  xcv.  387—396. 
6  Ib.,  xcv.  283 — 304.              7  Ib.,  xciv.    1505  — 1584. 

8  Ib.,  xcvi.   1319— 1336. 

9  Ib.,  xciv.    1585 — 1598,  and  xcvi.   1335—1348.  10  Ib.,  xciv.   1599— 1604. 


1-36  THIRD   PERIOD.       FIRST    SECTION. 

xaza  T?JQ  alpzaecDQ  zebu  Nzozopiavtov1,  and  on  the  composite  nature: 
mpi  ouvMrou  (puaecoQ2.  At  the  request  of  the  above-mentioned  metro- 
politan Peter  he  composed  and  addressed  to  a  Jacobite  bishop: 
xpbq  zbv  kniaxonov  drftzv  Toudapaiaq  (?)  zbu  '[axcaßiziqv 3 ,  a  work 
that  was  anti-Monophysite  in  purpose,  but  in  which  he  yields  to  his 
predilection  for  positive  teaching  and  expounds  the  christological 
doctrine  of  the  Church  at  great  length.  Monotheletism  was  refuted  by 
him  in  a  work  on  the  two  wills  in  Christ:  7zep\  zebu  iv  zw  Xpiozw 
duo  fteXrjfidztov*,  that  manifests  a  close  acquaintance  with  similar  works 
of  Maximus  Confessor.  The  best  of  his  polemical  writings  are  the 
three  apologies  in  favor  of  the  cultus  of  images:  xpog  zobg  dia- 
ßdMovzaQ  zäq  äpag  elxouag5.  The  first  was  written  probably  in  726, 
on  the  occasion  of  the  first  edict  of  Leo  the  Isaurian ;  the  second 
about  730,  and  the  third  some  years  later.  He  teaches  that  every 
mark  of  honor  paid  to  the  images  belongs  principally  to  the  object 
represented  by  them.  He  distinguishes  clearly  between  adoration 
(Xazpsia)  that  is  properly  paid  to  God  alone,  and  veneration  (npoa- 
xuvymq)  that  may  be  offered  to  creatures.  No  representation  can 
make  known  to  us  the  essence  of  the  divinity,  but  the  Incarnate 
God  may  be  made  visible  in  images  of  Him :  od  zyv  äbpazov  elxovc^w 
fteozyza,  akX  elxovi£(o  &£ou  zrjv  bpafteloous  adpxa6.  The  Mosaic  pro- 
hibition of  images  was  meant  to  prevent  any  attempt  to  represent  the 
essence  of  the  divinity ;  its  proper  object  was  to  forbid  the  honoring 
of  images  by  way  of  adoration:  rj  zfjg  Aazpeiaq  TzpoayJjvqaiq.  The 
educational  utility  of  images  is  evident:  they  bring  home  to  us  the 
facts  of  our  Redemption,  and  the  virtues  of  God's  Saints;  they 
are  the  books  of  all  those  who  cannot  read;  they  act  as  sermons 
for  those  who  gaze  upon  them.  These  apologies  have  ever  since 
been  praised  as  among  the  most  useful  works  ever  written  on  the 
veneration  of  images.  It  need  not  surprise  us  to  learn  that  in  the 
mediaeval  Greek  manuscripts  many  dogmatico-polemical  works  on 
the  images  have  been  erroneously  attributed  to  our  author.  In  his 
edition  of  the  Damascene's  writings,  Le  Quien  accepted  two  such 
works:  an  otherwise  noteworthy  apology  for  the  images  addressed 
to  Constantine  Cabalinos  or  Copronymos7,  and  a  letter  on  the  cultus 
of  images  addressed  to  emperor  Theophilus  and  written  about  846 8. 
The  continuators  of  the  Bibliotheca  of  Gallandi  added  to  this  list 
a  polemical  work  against  the  Iconoclasts,  composed  about  771,  and 
current  under  the  name  of  John 9. 

5.  ascetical  writings.   —  He   wrote   treatises   on    the   sacred 
fasts:    mp\  zebu  äficov  vrjazetüv™,    dealing   mostly   with  the  duration 

1  Migne,  PG.,  xcv.   187—224.  2  Ib.,  xcv.   1 11  — 126. 

3  Ib.,  xciv.   1435— 1502.  4  lb,  xcv.   127—186. 

>  Ib.,  xciv.    1231-1420.  e  Or.   1.  4.  7  Migne>  pG<|  xcv<  309-344. 

Ib.,  xcv.  345-386.  0  Ib.,  xcvi.   1347-1362.  10  Ib.,  xcv.  63-78. 


§    108.     ST.  JOHN   OF   DAMASCUS.  587 

of  the  ecclesiastical  fasts ;  on  the  eight  spirits  of  iniquity :  xep\ 
ra>i>  oxTco  zrJQ  Ttovrjpiac,  Ttveupdzcüv1,  or  the  eight  deadly  sins,  with 
special  reference  to  the  monastic  life;  on  virtues  and  vices:  7zep\ 
dpszwv  xdt  xaxcwv2,  closely  related  to  the  foregoing  treatise,  but 
meant  for  a  wider  circle  of  readers.  —  More  ascetic  than  dogmatic 
in  contents  are  the  Sacra  Parallela,  a  collection  of  biblical  and 
patristic  quotations,  that  easily  surpasses  in  copiousness  all  similar 
compilations.  It  was  originally  known  as  7s/?«,  and  was  divided  into 
three  books,  of  which  the  first  dealt  with  God  and  divine  things, 
the  second  with  man  and  human  relations,  the  third  with  virtues  and 
vices.  Each  book  was,  in  turn,  divided  into  a  long  series  of  «titles» 
furXocJ  or  rubrics;  in  the  first  two  books,  the  key- words  or  sub- 
headings were  arranged  alphabetically,  while  in  the  third  book  a 
virtue  and  a  vice  were  regularly  opposed  to  one  another;  from  this 
latter  peculiarity,  this  book  obtained  its  name  xapaXXyXa.  The  first 
two  books  have  reached  us  in  their  original  though  somewhat  ab- 
breviated form;  the  entire  work  was,  moreover,  variously  recast  at 
different  times  and  in  such  a  manner  as  to  do  away  with  the  ori- 
ginal division  into  three  books,  a  step  that  left  only  the  alphabetical 
arrangement  of  the  materials.  The  most  important  of  these  re- 
modellings  are  those  known  as  the  so-called  «Vatican»  recension, 
in  the  edition  of  Le  Quien 3,  and  the  so-called  «Rupefucaldina»  from 
a  twelfth-  or  thirteenth-century  manuscript  of  that  collection.  Loofs 
raised  doubts  (1892)  as  to  the  authorship  of  the  Damascene,  but 
Holl  has  shown  convincingly  (1896)  that  the  Sacra  Parallela  were 
really  composed  by  John  of  Damascus,  although  he  probably  made 
use  of  the  Capita  theologica  of  Maximus  Confessor  (§  107,  3). 

6.  EXEGETICAL  AND  HISTORICAL  WRITINGS.  —  It  is  the  scrip- 
tural learning  of  the  theologians  of  the  past  that  John  undertakes 
to  transmit  in  his  quality  of  exegete.  He  wrote  a  commentary  on  all 
the  Pauline  epistles4  in  which  he  uses  by  preference  the  relevant 
homilies  of  Chrysostom,  and  occasionally  draws  on  Theodoret  of 
Cyrus  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria.  —  He  appears  as  an  historian,  but 
only  once,  in  the  second  part  of  the  «Fountain  of  wisdom».  The 
«Life  of  Barlaam  and  Joasaph:  ßioq  Bapkaäp  xat  'Icodaa<pb,  in  which 
Robinson  has  lately  discovered  the  lost  Apology  of  Aristides  (§  15), 
is  not  the  work  of  John  of  Damascus,  but  of  a  monk  of  the  same  name 
in  the  monastery  of  St.  Saba;  it  was  composed  probably  in  the 
first  half  of  the  seventh  century.  This  famous  story  relates  in  a 
lively  and  picturesque  way  how  the  hermit  Barlaam  converted  to 
Christianity  Joasaph,  the  son  of  a  king  of  India,  in  spite  of  the 
latter's  opposition;   also  how  he  afterwards  converted  the  king  him- 

1  Ib.,  xcv.  79—86.  2  lb.  xcv.  85—98. 

3  Ib.,  xcv.   1039 — 1588;  xcvi.  9—442.  *.  Ib.,  xcv.  441 — 1034. 

5  Ib.,  xcvi.  859 — 1240. 


588 


THIRD   PERIOD.      FIRST    SECTION. 


self  and  his  whole  kingdom,  and  finally  died  as  he  had  lived,  a 
pious  hermit.  The  narrative  is  sheer  romance ;  Joasaph  and  Barlaam 
are  not  historical  figures,  and  the  substance  of  this  work  is  taken 
with  slight  changes  from  an  Indian  story  about  the  founder  of  Bud- 
dhism (cf.  Prol).  It  is  to  its  aesthetic  merit  and  moral  contents 
that  this  monody  on  the  sublime  worth  of  Christianity  and  the 
monastic  ideal  owed  its  success  as  one  of  the  most  popular  of 
mediaeval  folk-tales.  Many  languages,  in  East  and  West,  are  indebted 
directly  or  indirectly,  to  its  Greek  text,  for  the  countless  prose  or 
poetical  versions  that  have  been  constructed  from  it.  Another  historic- 
al Greek  text,  the  life  or  rather  the  sufferings  of  St.  Artemius1, 
taken  mostly  from  the  ecclesiastical  history  of  Philostorgius ,  was 
edited  by  Mai  (1840)  as  a  work  of  John  of  Damascus;  but  modern 
critics  reject  it  as  spurious. 

7.  HOMILIES.  —  Thirteen  homilies  are  current  under  his  name. 
Three  of  them  on  the  «Dormitio»  (elq  tyjv  xoifirjatv)  of  the  Blessed 
Virgin,  possess  a  dogmatic  interest2.  The  orator  himself  assures  us3 
that  they  were  delivered  on  the  feast  of  the  Assumption,  and  all 
three  on  the  same  day.  They  present  the  bodily  assumption  of  the 
Mother  of  God  into  heaven  as  an  ancient  heirloom  of  Catholic  faith, 
and  declare4  that  their  sole  purpose  is  to  develop  and  establish 
«what  in  a  brief  and  almost  too  concise  a  manner  the  son  has  in- 
herited from  the  father,  according  to  the  common  saying».  A  later 
hand  has  interpolated  in  the  second  homily  (c.  18)  the  often-quoted 
but  very  enigmatical  account  of  the  dealings  of  the  empress  Pulcheria 
with  Juvenal,  patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  in  reference  to  the  sepulchre 
of  Mary.  Some  critics  have  doubted  the  authenticity  of  the  two 
homilies  on  the  birth  of  Mary5,  and  the  two  homilies  on  the  An- 
nunciation6, the  first  extant  in  Arabic  only,  belong  certainly  to  a 
later  period.  The  liturgical  poetry  of  John  of  Damascus  has  been 
described  at  §  105,  6. 

8.  literature.  —  The  first  and  only  complete  edition  of  the  works 
of  St.  John  of  Damascus  is  that  by  Mick.  Le  Quien,  O.  P.,  Paris,  17 17, 
2  vols.;  Venice,  1748,  2  vols.  In  the  Migne  reprint  (PG.,  xciv— xcvi, 
Pans,  1864)  there  have  been  added,  as  a  supplement  (supplementi  vice), 
several  writings  that  were  only  gradually  recognized  as  the  property  of 
our  author.  H.  Hayd  translated  into  German  the  «Accurate  exposition  of 
the  orthodox  faith»  (see  no.  3),  Kempten,  1880  (Bibl.  der  Kirchenväter). 
lhe  spurious  work  on  confession  (see  no.  3)  was  edited  anew  with  a 
commentary  by  K.  Holl ,  Enthusiasmus  und  Bußgewalt  beim  griechischen 
Monchtum,  Leipzig,  1898.  For  further  details  concerning  the  extensive 
Flonlegium  described  above  (no.  5)  cf.  Fr.  Loofs,  Studien  über  die  dem 
Johannes  von  Damaskus  zugeschriebenen  Parallelen,  Halle,  1892  :  TA.  Scher- 
?nann}  Die  Geschichte  der  dogmatischen  Florilegien   vom  5.-8.   Iahrhun* 

j  Migne,  PG,  xcvi.   1251-1320.  2  Ibi>  xcyi    699_7Ö2> 

3  Hom.  iii.  5.  *  Hom.  ii.  4. 

6  Migne,  PG.,  xcvi.  661-698.  «  Ib.,  xcvi.  643-662. 


§    109.      SKETCH  OF  THE  EARLY  ARMENIAN  ECCLESIASTICAL  LITERATURE.    589 

dert,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  (1904),  xii.  1.  K.  Holl,  Die  Sacra 
Parallela  des  Johannes  Damascenus,  Leipzig,  1896,  in  Texte  und  Unter- 
suchungen, xvi,  new  series,  i.  1 ;  Id. ,  Fragmente  vornicänischer  Kirchen- 
väter aus  den  Sacra  Parallela,  Leipzig,  1899,  ?^»i  xx>  new  series,  v.  2; 
A.  Ehrhard,  Zu  den  Sacra  Parallela  und  dem  Florilegium  des  Maximos, 
in  Byzant.  Zeitschr.  (1901),  x.  394 — 415.  —  The  life  of  Barlaam  and 
Joasaph  was  edited  in  Greek  by  %  Fr.  Boissonade ,  Anecdota  Graeca, 
Paris,  1832,  iv.  1 — 365,  and  again  by  S.  Kechajoglos,  Athens,  1884.  A 
German  version  was  published  by  Fr.  Liebrecht ,  Münster,  1847.  For  a 
more  circumstantial  account  of  this  work  and  its  literary  history  see 
E.  Kuhn,  Barlaam  und  Joasaph.  Eine  bibliographisch-literärgeschichtliche 
Studie,  Munich,  1893,  in  Abhandlungen  der  k.  bayer.  Akad.  d.  Wissensch., 
I.  Klass.,  vol.  xx,  sect.  i.  Krumbacher ,  Gesch.  der  byzant.  Lit.,  2.  ed., 
pp.  886—891;  cf.  E.  Cosquin,  in  Revue  des  quest,  hist.  (1880),  xxxviii. 
579 — 600.  On  the  Vita  S.  Artemii,  edited  in  Greek  by  Mai,  Spicil.  Rom., 
iv.  340 — 397,  cf.  P.  Batiffol,  in  Rom.  Quartalschr.  (1889),  iii.  252 — 289.  — 
Among  the  general  writers  on  John  of  Damascus  are  J.  Langen,  Johannes 
von  Damaskus.  Eine  patristische  Monographie,  Gotha,  1879.  J-  ^-  Lupton, 
St.  John  of  Damascus,  London,  1884.  For  his  Christology  cf.  J.  Bach, 
Die  Dogmengeschichte  des  Mittelalters  vom  christlichen  Standpunkt,  Vienna, 
1873,  i.  49 — 78;  K.  'I.  AuaßouvuüTTjc,  icoawrj;  6  AajAGKTxrivo;,  Athens,  1903; 
K.  Bornhäuser,  Die  Vergötterungslehre  des  Athanasius  und  Johannes  Da- 
mascenus. Ein  Beitrag  zur  Kritik  von  A.  Harnacks  Wesen  des  Christen- 
tums, Gütersloh,  1903.  —  In  the  Byzant.  Zeitschrift  (1900),  ix.  14 — 51, 
Fr.  Diekamp  speaks  of  a  priest  or  monk  George,  three  of  whose  short 
treatises  he  edits,  and  whom  he  considers  one  of  the  «sources»  for  the 
history  of  heresies  in  the  second  part  of  the  «Fountain  of  wisdom».  The 
same  writer  edited,  with  a  commentary,  in  Theol.  Quartalschrift  (1901), 
lxxxiii.  555 — 599,  a  manuscript  treatise  of  the  Damascene  against  the  Nesto- 
rians,  also  the  Greek  text  of  the  treatise  against  the  Jacobites  that  was 
hitherto  known  only  in  a  Latin  version  made  from  the  Arabic  (Migne, 
PG. ,  xciv.  14361).  V.  Ermoni,  Saint  Jean  Damascene,  in  La  Pense'e 
chretienne,  Textes  et  Etudes,  Paris,  1904. 


SECOND  SECTION. 

ARMENIAN  WRITERS. 

§  iog.    Sketch  of  the  early  Armenian  ecclesiastical  literature. 

I.  IN  GENERAL.  —  It  is  very  probable  that  as  early  as  the  first 
century,  apostolic  missionaries  penetrated  from  Asia  Minor  into  Western 
Armenia  and  announced  there  the  good  tidings  of  Christ.  The  first 
germs  of  the  new  religion  were  brutally  stifled  by  persecution.  Early 
in  the  fourth  century  St.  Gregory  the  Illuminator  and  his  convert 
king  Terdat  (Tiridates)  won  over  the  whole  Armenian  plateau  to 
Christianity  with  incredible  rapidity.  The  Armenian  literature,  the  origin 
of  which  goes  back  to  the  fourth  century,  is  entirely  Christian.  Early 
in  the  fifth  century  appear  the  brilliant  names  of  Isaac  the  Great 
and  Mesrop.  With  the  aid  of  Isaac,  Mesrop  invented  (405—406)  the 
Armenian  alphabet,  and  thereby  made  a  native  literature  possible. 
In  the  execution  of  this  task  he   adapted   his   letters   successfully  to 


Cgo  THIRD   PERIOD.       SECOND    SECTION. 

the  phonetics  of  the  Armenian  tongue,  one  of  the  Indo- Germanic 
languages  and  closely  related  to  Persian.  The  first  book  written 
in  the  new  alphabet  was  the  Bible;  it  was  translated  about  410  by 
Isaac  and  Mesrop,  with  the  help  of  other  learned  men,  from  the 
Syriac  Peschittho.  About  432  this  text  was  revised  and  definitively 
established  according  to  the  Hexaplar  Septuagint  and  the  Greek  text 
of  the  New  Testament.  From  this  version  of  the  Bible  sprang  the 
abundant  literature  of  Armenia,  that  includes  many  theological  and 
historical  works,  also  translations  from  Greek  and  Syriac.  It  was 
not  long,  however,  in  reaching  its  acme.  While  Isaac  the  Great  still 
lived,  Armenia  was  stripped  of  her  political  independence,  never 
again  to  regain  it.  In  the  following  century  the  anti-Christian  ad- 
ministration of  her  Persian  conquerors  struck  a  severe  blow  at  the 
organization  and  life  of  the  Christian  Church  in  Armenia ;  finally  when 
it  had  withstood  the  stress  of  persecution  and  emerged  therefrom 
victorious,  the  Armenian  Church  fell  a  victim  to  the  Monophysite 
heresy.  Long  before  this,  however,  Armenia  had  sunk  into  intellectual 
lethargy  and  sterility. 

The  first  attempt  at  a  history  of  Armenian  literature  is  owing  to  PL 
Sukias  Somal,  Quadro  delle  opere  di  vari  autori  anticamente  tradotte  in 
Armeno,  Venice,  1825,  and:  Quadro  della  Storia  letteraria  di  Armenia, 
Venice,  1829.  It  is  on  these  works  that  C.  Fr.  Neumann  based  his  Ver- 
such einer  Geschichte  der  armenischen  Literatur,  nach  den  Werken  der 
Mechitaristen  frei  bearbeitet,  Leipzig,  1836.  Cf.  C.  Fr.  Neumann,  Bey- 
träge  zur  armenischen  Litteratur,  fasc.  I  (the  only  one),  Munich,  1849. 
Among  the  later  works  on  the  history  of  Armenian  literature  are  those 
of  P.  Kare 'kin,  History  of  Armenian  literature,  Venice,  1865 — 1878,  2  vols., 
2.  ed.  1886,  3.  ed.  1897  (in  modern  Armenian).  F.  Neve,  L'Armenie 
chretienne  et  sa  litte'rature ,  Louvain,  1886  (not  a  comprehensive  history 
of  Armenian  literature,  but  a  series  of  special  studies,  the  most  im- 
portant of  which  [pp.  46 — 247]  is  that  on  Armenian  hymnology).  There 
is  a  good  conspectus  of  Armenian  literature  in  v.  HimpeVs  article  «Arme- 
nische Sprache,  Schrift  und  Literatur»,  in  the  Lexikon  of  Wetzer  und 
Weite  (1882),  2.  ed.,  i.  1344— 1353;  cf.  P.  Karekin,  Armenian  Biography, 
Venice,  1883  (in  modern  Armenian),  and  Id.,  Catalogo  delle  antiche  ver- 
sioni  armene,  Venice,  1889.  For  «Mesrop  and  his  school»  see  P.  Vetter, 
in  J.  Nirschl,  Lehrbuch  der  Patrologie  und  Patristik  (1885),  iii.  215 — 262. 
The  early  Christian  history  of  Armenia  is  found  in  the  critical  work  of 
S.  Weber,  Die  katholische  Kirche  in  Armenien,  ihre  Begründung  und  Ent- 
wicklung. Ein  Beitrag  zur  christlichen  und  Kulturgeschichte,  Freiburg, 
1893.  See  Z.  Petit,  Armenie.  Litterature,  in  Diet,  de  la  Theologie,  i.  1933 
to  1944.  The  Armenian  version  of  the  scriptures  is  described  in  the  special 
introductions  to  the  Bible.  —  During  the  eighteenth  century  many  ancient 
works  in  Armenian  were  printed  at  Constantinople  and  London.  In  the 
nineteenth  century  the  Mechitarist  Congregation  of  San  Lazzaro  at  Venice 
has  earned  lasting  renown  by  its  editions  of  several  classical  works  of 
Armenian  literature. 

2.  ST.  GREGORY  ILLUMINATOR  AND  AGATHANGELOS.  —  Gregory 
was  the  apostle  and  the  first  bishop  of  Armenia ;  he  closed  his  long, 
laborious   and   stormy  life   about   332.    The  Armenian  Church    con- 


§    I09.      SKETCH  OF  THE  EARLY  ARMENIAN  ECCLESIASTICAL  LITERATURE.     59 1 

tinues  to  hold  in  great  honor  a  collection  of  (23)  discourses  and 
encyclical  letters  of  Gregory.  Vetter  is  of  opinion  that  these  docu- 
ments belong  to  the  first  half  of  the  fifth  century,  and  that  they 
are  probably  writings  of  Mesrop.  —  There  is  extant  under  the  name 
of  Agathangelos,  whom  the  Armenians  regard  as  their  first  national 
historiographer,  a  history  of  Gregory  Illuminator  and  his  apostolic 
labors  as  first  missionary  to  the  Armenians.  The  work  exists  in 
Armenian  and  in  Greek.  The  Armenian  text  is  entitled:  History 
of  the  Great  Terdat  (Tiridates)  and  of  the  preaching  of  St.  Gregory 
the  Illuminator,  while  the  Greek  text  has  «Martyrdom  of  St.  Gregory». 
The  latter  work  is  clearly  a  version  from  the  Armenian:  in  the 
Armenian  work  there  is  a  long  doctrinal  discourse  of  Gregory,  equal 
to  one  half  of  the  whole  work;  the  Greek  translator  has  suppressed 
this  document.  The  author  calls  himself  Agathangelos  and  says  he 
wrote  at  the  order  of  king  Terdat,  not  from  ancient  legends,  but 
as  one  who  had  seen  and  heard  what  he  narrated.  On  the  other 
hand,  v.  Gutschmid  has  shown  that  the  original  Armenian  text  of 
Agathangelos  belongs  to  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century  and  that 
it  includes  fragments  of  two  earlier  works:  a  biography  of  St.  Gre- 
gory, and  a  martyrdom  of  St.  Gregory  and  of  St.  Rhipsime  and  her 
companions.  One  can  find  in  Agathangelos  reliable  historical  mate- 
rial, but  he  also  offers  much  that  is  legendary  and  incredible.  The 
unknown  author  seems  to  have  called  himself  Agathangelos  fdyaS- 
dyyeXoQ),  merely  because  he  related  to  the  Armenians  the  «good  tid- 
ings»  of  the  introduction  of  Christianity  among  them. 

The  collection  of  pseudo-homilies  of  the  Illuminator  was  printed  in 
Armenian  at  Constantinople  in  1737,  and  at  Venice,  1838.  We  owe  a 
German  version  of  the  work  to  J.  M.  Schmid ,  Reden  und  Lehren  des 
hl.  Gregorius  des  Erleuchters,  Patriarch  von  Armenien,  Ratisbon,  1872. 
Some  of  the  most  remarkable  passages  are  also  translated  into  German  by 
Vetter,  1.  c.  (see  no.  1),  pp.  223 — 227;  he  also  discusses  (1.  c,  pp.  219 
to  222)  the  origin  of  the  homilies.  Neve  (1.  c. ,  see  no.  1),  pp.  250  ff., 
considers  them  genuine.  —  The  Armenian  text  of  Agathangelos  was 
published  at  Constantinople  1709  and  1824;  at  Venice  1835  and  1862;  at 
Tiflis  1882.  An  Italian  version,  minus  the  long  discourse  of  Gregory,  was 
published  at  Venice,  1843.  There  is  a  French  version  of  the  work,  without 
the  purely  devotional  sections,  in  V.  Langlois ,  Collection  des  historiens 
anciens  et  modernes  de  l'Armenie,  Paris,  1867,  i.  97 — 193.  The  Greek 
text  of  Agathangelos  was  edited  from  a  Florentine  manuscript  by  J.  Stil- 
ting, in  Acta  SS.  Sept.,  Antwerp,  1762,  viii.  320 — 402.  Stilting 's  edition 
is  reprinted  in  Langlois  (1.  a),  and  again  in  P.  de  Lagarde,  Agathangelus 
und  die  Akten  Gregors  von  Armenien  (Abhandlungen  der  kgl.  Gesellsch. 
der  Wissensch.  zu  Göttingen,  Göttingen,  1887,  xxxv.  A.  v.  Gutschmid, 
Agathangelos,  in  Zeitschr.  der  deutschen  Morgenland.  Gesellsch.  (1877), 
xxxi.  1 — 60.  G.  Thoumaian,  Agathangelos  et  la  doctrine  de  l'eglise  arme- 
nienne  au  Ve  siecle  (These),  Lausanne,  1879.  B.  Sargisean,  Agatangelo 
ed  il  suo  mistero  polisecolare  (literary  Armenian),  Venice,  1890. 

3.  ISAAC  THE  GREAT  AND  MESROP.  —  Isaac  (in  Armenian  «Sahak») 
surnamed  the  Great,  was  Catholicos  or  patriarch  of  Armenia  during 


CQ2  THIRD   PERIOD.      SECOND   SECTION. 

the  years  390 — 440,  and  rendered  incalculable  services  to  the  youth- 
ful church  of  that  country  in  a  period  of  grave  peril  and  oppres- 
sion. His  prudence  and  zeal  thwarted  the  attempts  of  the  Persian 
kings  to  introduce  the  worship  of  Ormuzd;  on  the  other  hand,  he 
withstood  the  solicitations  of  the  Nestorians,  and  caused  the  Armenian 
nation  to  rally  to  the  defence  of  the  decrees  of  Ephesus.  He  was 
supported  by  Mesrop,  who  shared  his  labors  and  his  ideas,  and  con- 
tributed greatly  to  the  development  of  ecclesiastical  life  and  the 
extinction  of  paganism  and  heresy.  After  the  death  of  Isaac  (440), 
Mesrop  bore  the  burden  of  episcopal  administration  until  the  nomina- 
tion of  a  new  Catholicos.  He  did  not  long  survive  his  lifelong  friend ; 
his  death  took  place  some  six  months  later,  in  441.  We  have  al- 
ready mentioned  the  debt  owed  by  the  nation  to  these  two  great 
men  for  their  invention  of  an  Armenian  alphabet  and  their  labors 
in  translating  the  Scriptures  into  Armenian.  They  are  also,  in  a 
large  measure,  the  creators  of  the  Armenian  liturgy.  In  the  annals 
of  Armenian  literature  both  are  credited  with  ecclesiastical  hymns; 
Isaac  in  particular  is  said  to  have  written  a  manual  of.  liturgy.  Mes- 
rop seems  to  have  translated  into  Armenian  several  works  of  Greek 
and  Syriac  ecclesiastical  writers;  in  the  absence  of  exact  information, 
it  is  not  easy  to  say  how  much  belongs  to  Mesrop  amid  the  abun- 
dant Armenian  ecclesiastical  translation-literature  of  the  fifth  century. 
It  has  been  stated  above  that,  according  to  Vetter,  Mesrop  is  the 
author  of  the  homilies  attributed  to  Gregory  Illuminator. 

On  the  literary  history  of  Isaac  the  Great  cf.  Neumann,  Versuch  einer 
Geschichte  der  armen.  Literatur  (see  no.  1),  pp.  28 — 30.  Moses  of  Corene 
has  incorporated  in  his  History  of  Armenia  Major  (iii.  57  ;  see  no.  6)  three 
short  letters  of  Isaac ;  one  each  to  the  emperor  Theodosius  II. ,  Atticus 
patriarch  of  Constantinople,  and  the  prefect  Anatolius.  There  is  a  German 
version  of  these  letters  in  M.  Lauer,  Des  Moses  von  Chorene  Geschichte 
Groß-Armeniens,  Ratisbon,  1869,  pp.  219—220.  In  the  American  Journal 
of  Theology  (1898),  ii.  828—848,  Fr.  C.  Conybeare  translated  into  English 
an  ecclesiastical  ordinance  of  Isaac.  For  two  other  letters,  written  con- 
jointly by  Isaac  and  Mesrop,  in  reply  to  Proclus  of  Constantinople  and 
Acacius  of  Melitene,  see  «The  Book  of  Letters»  edited  by  J.  Ismireanz, 
Tims,  1 901;  m  this  work  are  also  found  many  other  letters  and  docu- 
ments of  the  ancient  Armenian  literature  not  mentioned  here.  —  The 
apostolic  labors  of  St.  Mesrop  are  described  with  feeling  and  with  classic 
elegance  in  a  life  written  by  his  disciple  Koriun,  a  bishop  in  Georgia, 
between  445  and  451-  It  was  edited  at  Venice  in  1833,  and  translated 
into  German  (without  the  diffuse  introduction)  by  B.  Weite,  Goriuns  Lebens- 
beschreibung des  hl.  Mesrop,  Tübingen,  1841.  Another  shorter  and  later 
recension  of  the  biography  was  printed  at  Venice  in  1854  and  1895,  and 
translated  into  French  by  J.  R.  Emin,  in  the  collection  of  Langlois  (see 
*?\V'  I  C,'„11,;  J~ l6>  0n  the  invention  of  the  Armenian  alphabet 
cf.  Mesrob  e  1  alfabeto  armeno,  in  Bessarione  (1896  1897),  i.  807-810  912 
l91]1  ~  *or  Ch°srowig,  one  of  the  fifth-century  translators  of  the  Bible 
into  Armenian  see  J  Dashian ,  Short  bibliographical  Studies,  Researches 
and   lexts  (modern  Armenian),  Vienna,  1895,  ><  49~75.     The  work  ends 


§    109.      SKETCH  OF  THE  EARLY  ARMENIAN  ECCLESIASTICAL  LITERATURE.     593 

with  a  little  treatise  entitled:  «From  Chosrowik,  the  Armenian  translator, 
to  those  who  say  that  together  with  His  spiritual  and  eternal  nature  God 
the  Word  received  from  the  Virgin  human  nature.»  —  There  are  also 
extant  some  writings  of  Ananias ,  another  of  these  early  translators,  a  ho- 
mily on  the  mystery  of  the  prophet  Jonas,  and  a  sermon  on  St.  John  the 
Baptist.  Ananias  is  also  the  reputed  translator  into  Armenian  of  the  works 
of  Philo  of  Alexandria;  cf.  B.  Sargisean,  Ananias  the  Translator,  Venice, 
1899  (modern  Armenian).  There  is  an  account  of  the  disciples  of  Isaac 
and  Mesrop,  and  of  the  earliest  Armenian  translators  of  the  fifth  century 
in  the  work  of  Misadgean,  Vienna,  1902. 

4.  EZNIK.  —  This  disciple  of  Mesrop  was  born  in  the  village  of 
Kolb  (Koghb)  and  is  certainly  identical  with  Eznik,  bishop  of  Bag- 
revand,  who  assisted  at  the  synod  of  Aschtischat,  in  449.  His  high 
place  in  Armenian  literature  is  owing  to  his  work  in  four  books, 
entitled:  «The  Confutation  of  the  sects».  In  the  first  book  he  refutes 
the  «sect  of  the  pagans»,  and  chiefly  their  doctrines  of  the  eternity 
of  matter,  and  of  evil  as  something  substantial,  not  accidental.  In 
the  second  book  he  challenges  the  «religion  of  the  Persians»,  parti- 
cularly Zerwanitism,  a  later  form  ofParseism.  In  the  third  book  he 
turns  his  weapons  against  «the  schools  of  the  Greek  philosophers», 
and  particularly  their  astronomical  notions  and  teaching.  In  the 
fourth  he  deals  with  «the  sect  of  Marcion»,  and  its  pretended  pos- 
session of  a  traditional  secret  doctrine.  Vetter  says  that  the  whole 
is  «the  first  essay  of  a  highly  gifted  nation  which  has  just  risen  from 
barbarian  ignorance  to  Christian  thinking,  in  order  to  fight  against 
the  pagan  view  of  life  in  its  principal  systems  and  in  its  chief  ideas, 
in  a  speculative  manner.  «Eznik  displays  much  acumen  and  extensive 
erudition.  His  writings  are  said  to  offer  the  most  perfect  example 
of  the  ancient  classic  Armenian.  Native  tradition  attributes  some 
homilies  to  him,  but  they  have  perished.  He  was  also  a  collaborator 
in  the  translation  of  the  Bible  (see  no.  1),  and  perhaps  of  other 
works  from  Greek  and  Syriac. 

The  Armenian  text  of  the  «Confutation  of  the  sects»  was  printed  at 
Smyrna,  in  1762,  and  at  Venice,  in  1826  and  1863;  these  editions  contain 
also  a  short  collection  of  Sententiae  (93)  attributed  to  Eznik.  A  (very 
defective)  French  version  of  the  Confutation  and  of  this  collection  was 
published  by  Le  Vaillant  de  Florwal,  Refutation  des  differentes  sectes  etc., 
Paris,  1853.  We  owe  a  good  German  version  to  J.  M.  Schmid ,  Eznik 
von  Kolb,  Wider  die  Sekten,  Leipzig,  1900  (Bibliothek  der  alten  armen. 
Literatur,  i).  The  date  of  the  composition  and  genuineness  of  Eznik's 
chief  work  is  discussed  by  S.  Weber,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1897),  lxxix. 
367—398;  the  contents  of  the  Confutation  is  also  described  by  Weber,  in 
Katholik  (1898),  i.  212—231  311—326.  As  to  its  «sources»  see  Vetter, 
Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1894),  lxxvi.  529  ff. ;  Lit.  Rundschau  (1895),  p.  269.  — 
David  the  Armenian,  who  lived  in  the  second  half  of  the  fifth  century  and 
translated  Aristotelian  and  Neoplatonist  works ,  belongs  to  the  history  of 
philosophy ;  he  was,  nevertheless,  a  champion  of  the  orthodox  faith  against 
the  Nestorians.  Cf.  v.  Himpel  on  David,  in  Wetzer  und  Weite,  Kirchen- 
lexikon, 2.  ed.,  iii.  141 1 — 1413. 

Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  3^ 


Cq4  THIRD   PERIOD.      SECOND   SECTION. 

c.  ST.  ELISCHE.  —  More  numerous  works  have  reached  us  under 
the  name  of  St.  Elische  (Elisaeus).  He,  too,  was  a  disciple  of  Mesrop, 
and  in  his  youth  had  served  under  the  Armenian  general  Vardanes 
either  as  soldier  or  secretary.  He  is  usually  identified  with  Elische, 
bishop  of  the  Amatunii,  one  of  the  members  of  the  national  council 
of  Aschtischat  (449).  He  died,  as  anchorite,  about  480.  The  Mechi- 
tarist  edition  of  his  works  contains  commentaries  on  Joshua  and 
Judges,  an  explanation  of  the  Our  Father,  a  beautiful  letter  to  the 
Armenian  monks,  rules  for  the  treatment  of  demoniacs,  and  many 
homilies  notably  on  events  in  the  life  of  Christ,  and  a  history  of 
Vardanes  and  the  Armenian  War.  The  genuineness  or  integrity  of 
all  these  writings  has  been  called  in  question.  The  story  of  the  brave 
struggle  for  their  Christian  faith  carried  on  by  the  Armenians  under 
Vardanes  (449 — 451)  against  the  tyranny  and  persecution  of  the 
powerful  Persian  king,  Jezdegerdes  II.,  was  always  a  favorite  work 
among  the  Armenians.  Vetter  says  of  it:  «The  history  of  Vardanes 
is  based  on  the  accounts  of  eye-witnesses.  It  is  one  of  the  noblest 
works  of  Armenian  historiography,  whether  we  consider  the  grandiose 
and  dramatic  disposition  of  the  material,  the  severe  and  dignified  style, 
or  the  warm  enthusiasm  of  the  writer  for  Church  and  fatherland.» 

Complete  editions  of  the  works  of  Elische  were  printed  at  Venice, 
1839  and  1859.  The  history  of  Vardanes  was  printed  several  times:  Con- 
stantinople 1764;  Tiflis  1879;  Venice  1893.  It  has  been  translated  into 
several  European  languages:  into  English  by  C.  Fr.  Neumann,  London, 
1830  (unfinished);  into  Italian  by  G.  Cappelletti,  Venice,  1840;  into  French 
by  G.  Kabaradji,  Paris,  1 844  (untrustworthy),  and  by  Langlois,  in  his  Col- 
lection des  historiens  de  l'Armenie,  ii.  177 — 251.  Cf.  Vetter,  1.  c,  p.  262, 
and  Neve,  1.  c,  pp.  299 — 316.  In  his  dissertation  Dei  tesori  patristici  e 
biblici  conservati  nella  letteratura  armena  (Compte-rendu  du  IV.  congres 
scientif.  mternat.  des  Catholiques,  Fribourg  [Suisse],  1898,  pp.  209 — 230), 
B.  Sargisean  remarks  (pp.  221 — 222)  that  in  the  Vardanes-commentary  on 
Genesis  (saec.  XIII)  there  has  been  preserved  a  considerable  portion  of  a 
commentary  of  Elische  on  the  same  book ;  Sargisean  thinks  that  Elische's 
commentary  on  Joshua  and  Judges  is  a  translation  of  some  Alexandrine 
commentary.  —  Lazarus  of  Pharp,  a  younger  contemporary  of  Elische, 
wrote  a  history  of  Armenia  from  388  to  485.  It  was  printed  in  Venice 
in  1793  1807  1873  1891,  and  translated  into  French  by  S.  Ghesarian,  in 
Langlois  (1.  c,  ii.  253—368).  —  John  Mandakuni  (f  about  498,  as  Catho- 
hcos  of  Armenia)  is  the  reputed  author  of  a  number  of  homilies  edited 
at  Venice  m  1837  and  i860,  and  translated  into  German  by  J.  M.  Schmid, 
Ratisbon,  1871.  Cf.  B.  Sargisean,  Critical  Researches  on  John  Mandakuni 
and  his  Works,  Venice,  1895  (in  modern  Armenian).  He  is  also  credited 
with  a  treatise  as  to  whether  the  Redeemer  is  spoken  of  as  in  two  natures 
or  in  one  only.     It  is  found  in  the  «Book  of  Letters»  (§  109,  3). 

6.  MOSES  OF  CHORENE.  —  The  most  celebrated  of  the  ancient 
Armenian  writers  is  Moses  of  Choren  (Chorene),  surnamed  the  «father 
of  Scholars».  Three  large  works  are  attributed  to  him:  a  History 
of  Armenia  Major,  a  Geography,  and  a  Rhetoric,  also  some  smaller 


§    I09-      SKETCH  OF  THE  EARLY  ARMENIAN  ECCLESIASTICAL  LITERATURE.     595 

works,  e.  g.  the  life  of  Saint  Rhipsime   and  her  companions,   a  cor- 
respondence with  the  Artsrunic  prince  Isaac  (Sahak),   some  homilies, 
and  numerous  ecclesiastical  hymns.     The  most  important  of  these  writ- 
ings is  the  History  of  Armenia  Major.     It  is  divided  into  three  sec- 
tions:   «a   Genealogy   of  Armenia   Major»    or    its    history    from    the 
most  ancient  times  to  the    foundation  of  the  Arsacid   dynasty    (149 
B.  C),   «a  History  of  the  middle  period  of  our  ancestors»,   i.  e.  the 
story   of  the   Armenian   Arsacids   to   the    death   of  St.    Gregory   Il- 
luminator  and  king  Terdat,-  finally    «the   End   of  the  history  of  our 
fatherland»,    in  which  he  relates  the  events   that   happened   between 
the  death  of  Terdat   and   the   extinction   of  the  Armenian  Arsacids 
(428).    In  mediaeval  times  there  was  extant  a  fourth  book  that  brought 
the   history   down   to   the   emperor  Zeno    (474 — 491);    this   book   is 
lacking  in  all  known  manuscripts.    The  highly  pathetic  style  of  the 
work  is  closely  imitated  in  the  fifth-century  Armenian  version  of  the 
so-called    «Book    of  Alexander»,    i.  e.    biography    of  Alexander    by 
pseudo-Callisthenes.     The   author   of  the   history   of  Armenia  Major 
calls  himself  Moses  of  Chorene   and  pretends  to  belong  to  the  fifth 
century,    to    be    a  disciple    of  Saint  Mesrop,    and  to  have  composed 
his  work  at  the  request  of  Isaac  (Sahak),  the  Bagratunic  prince  who 
fell  in  battle  in  482.     These   personal   statements   are   shown    to    be 
untrustworthy,  for  internal  and  external  reasons.    In    his   account  of 
his    own    life    the    author    contradicts    such    fifth-century    writers    as 
Koriun  and  Lazarus  of  Pharp.    Carriere  has  shown  recently  that  he 
makes  use  of  historical  sources  posterior  to  the  sixth  and  even    the 
seventh   century,    e.  g.  Armenian   versions   of  the    Vita   S.  Silvestri 
and  the  Church  history  of  Socrates.     It  is  only  since  the  ninth  cen- 
tury that  traces  of  his  work  are  found  in  Armenian  literature.    This 
does  not  carry  with  it  the  negation  of  the   historical   personality   of 
Moses   of  Chorene,    who   is   one  of  the  venerable  fathers  of  the  Ar- 
menian Church,    and  who  really  lived  in  the  fifth  century.     Lazarus 
of  Pharp  bears  witness  to  the  existence   in   the    fifth    century  of  an 
Armenian   bishop  who   was   named  Moses   and   was   a   distinguished 
writer.    We  do  not  know  the  reason  why  this  eighth-  or  ninth-century 
writer  took  the  name  and  the  mask  of  Moses  of  Chorene.    He  makes 
it  clear  that   he   intends   to    glorify   the  Bagratunid    dynasty.     From 
the  end  of  the  seventh    century  this   dynasty  surpassed   in   splendor 
all    the    other   noble   houses   of  Armenia;    in    885  Aschot  L,    a    de- 
scendant  of  that  house,    was   recognized    by  the  Caliph   as   king   of 
Armenia.    Vetter    conjectures    that    the    secret    aim    of  the    pseudo- 
Moses    of  Chorene    was    to    prepare   the   way   for    the    accession    of 
this  house.    In  spite  of  its  really  late  date,  the  author's  narrative  is, 
generally  speaking,  trustworthy.    He  draws  largely  on  ancient  autho- 
rities, though  occasionally  he  modifies  them  in  a  capricious  way  and 
embodies  his  own  ideas  in  their  context ;  but  it  cannot  be  maintained, 

38* 


tn(5  THIRD   PERIOD.      SECOND   SECTION. 

as  some  have  done,  that  he  invented  these  authorities  off-hand.  His 
witnesses  for  the  ancient  history  of  Armenia,  even  as  late  as  the 
second  or  third  century  after  Christ,  were  principally  legends  and 
folk-song,  and  it  is  precisely  this  legendary  element  that  lends  to 
the  work  its  special  charm  and  value.  The  Geography  and  Rhetoric 
mentioned  above  are  of  course  no  more  genuine  works  of  Moses  of 
Chorene,  than  the  History.  All  three  works  are  by  the  same  author, 
as  is  evident  both  from  the  testimony  of  the  manuscripts  and  from 
intrinsic  criteria.  The  author's  own  statement  leads  us  to  believe 
that  the  Geography  is  an  extract  from  the  description  of  the  world 
(yjopofpayia  olxoDfisvtxr))  by  Pappus,  an  Alexandrine  author  of  the 
fourth  century  of  our  era.  The  Rhetoric  is  entitled  «Chria»  in  the 
manuscripts,  and  is  executed  on  such  Greek  models  as  Aphthonius 
and  Theon.  The  minor  writings  mentioned  above  await  a  more 
thorough  examination  into  their  genuineness.  Vetter  has  shown  that 
the  correspondence  with  Prince  Isaac  concerning  the  origin  of  a 
miraculous  Madonna  cannot  be  earlier  than  the  year   looo. 

Complete  editions  of  our  author's  works  were  printed  at  Venice  in 
1843  and  1865.  The  History  of  Armenia  Major  has  been  republished, 
in  the  original  and  in  versions,  more  frequently  than  any  other  work  of 
Armenian  literature.  The  first  edition  appeared  at  Amsterdam  in  1695, 
the  last  at  Venice  in  1881  (Tiflis,  1881).  For  a  critical  history  of  all 
editions  cf.  A.  Baumgartner,  in  Zeitschr.  der  Deutschen  morgenländischen 
Gesellsch.  (1886),  xl.  482—489.  There  is  a  new  French  version  in  Langlois, 
Collection  des  historiens,  ii.  45 — 175.  A  German  version  is  owing  to 
M.  Lauer,  Ratisbon,  1869;  and  an  Italian  one  to  G.  Cappelletti,  Venice, 
1 841.  A.  v.  Gutschmid,  Über  die  Glaubwürdigkeit  der  armenischen  Ge- 
schichte des  Moses  von  Khoren,  in  Berichte  über  die  Verhandlungen  der 
kgl.  sächs.  Gesellsch.  der  Wissensch. ,  philol.-hist.  Klasse  (1876),  xxviii.  1 
to  43.  A.  Carriere,  Moise  de  Khoren  et  les  genealogies  patriarcales,  Paris, 
1891.  Id.,  Nouvelles  sources  de  Moise  de  Khoren,  Vienna,  1893,  with  a 
supplement,  Vienna,  1894.  Id,  La  legende  d'Abgar  dans  l'histoire  d'Ar- 
menie  de  Moise  de  Khoren,  Paris,  1895.  Id.,  Les  huits  sanctuaires  de 
lArrnenie  paienne  d'apres  Agathange  et  Moise  de  Khoren,  Paris,  1899. 
*r.  C  Conybeare  dissents,  in  Byzant.  Zeitschr.  (1901),  x.  489—504,  from 
Larriere  s  conclusions  concerning  the  late  date  of  Moses  of  Chorene.  The 
egends  and  sagas  of  Armenia  that  Moses  wove  into  his  History  are  il- 
lustrated by  Vetter,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1894),  lxxvi.  48-76.  Vetter  enu- 
merates, in  the  Kirchenlexikon  of  Wetzer  und  Weite,  2.  ed.,  viii.  1961, 
the  editions  and  versions  of  the  Geography.  There  is  also  an  edition 
with  a  Russian  version  and  notes  by  K.  P.  Patkanov,  St.  Petersburg,  1877. 
/  Marquart  Evanschahr  nach  der  Geographie  des  Pseudo-Moses  Chore- 
Tro'wi:  ^isch-kritischem  Kommentar  und  historischem  und  topo- 
WkS'S  if"1  £kUrSe'  Bfrlm'  I9QI  (Abhandlungen  der  kgl.  Gesellsch.  der 
Iw!fn  f  .?0«lnge*).The  work  on  Rhetoric  is  described  by  A.  Baum- 
.artner  in  Zeitschr.  der  Deutschen  morgenländ.  Gesellsch.  (1886),  xl.  457 
PatroLJ0-"  corresP°ndence  with  Prince  Isaac  see  Vetter,  in  Nirschl, 
FncvcWd^'^t4""246-     Cf' /1S0  *  Gutsch^d  on  Moses  of  Chorene,  in 

SSÄ 9"    ' xvi'  86l~863' and  FMr' in  Kirchen- 


§    IIO.      GENERAL    CONSPECTUS.  597 

THIRD  SECTION. 

LATIN  WRITERS. 

§  no.    General  conspectus. 

I.  DECADENCE  OF  ECCLESIASTICAL  LITERATURE.  —  The  decay 
of  scientific  thought  and  endeavor  that  characterizes  the  Greek  East 
in  this  period  (cf.  §  98,  1),  is  visible  also  in  the  Latin  West.  Both 
creative  power  and  energetic  will  have  become  weak.  The  best  efforts 
of  ecclesiastical  scholars  are  now  directed  towards  the  co-ordination 
and  practical  use  of  the  materials  bequeathed  by  earlier  scholarship. 
It  is  the  period  in  which  Roman  civilization  suffers  complete  wreckage 
at  the  hands  of  the  irresistible  Northern  and  Eastern  tribes ;  barbarism 
with  all  its  accompanying  horrors  hangs  like  a  dark  cloud  over  the 
entire  West.  But  the  untutored  conquerors  are  amenable  to  spiritual 
ideas  and  influences;  gradually  they  begin  to  look  on  the  Church 
with  sentiments  of  joy  and  gratitude  as  on  their  mistress  and  teacher. 
From  its  contact  with  the  Germanic  nations  ecclesiastical  science  ac- 
quired new  objects ;  signs  of  literary  activity  began  again  to  multiply 
(see  no.  2).  The  quasi-total  theological  decadence  visible  in  the  East 
since  the  fifth  century,  was  never  quite  so  complete  in  the  West; 
Latin  theology  continues  to  offer  a  series  of  remarkable  names.  Chris- 
tian literature  really  flourished  at  the  end  of  the  fifth  century  in 
Southern  Gaul,  while  in  the  sixth  century  theological  science  got 
new  life  in  Northern  Africa,  Italy  and  Spain. 

2.  SUBJECT-MATTER  OF  LATIN  THEOLOGY.  —  Foremost  among 
the  polemico-dogmatic  discussions  are  the  questions  concerning  the 
relations  of  free-will  and  divine  grace.  While  the  Greeks  loved  to 
discuss  the  problems  of  Christology  (§  84,  1),  the  Latin  theologians 
had  long  since  manifested  their  preference  for  Christian  anthropo- 
logy and  the  doctrine  of  grace.  Pelagianism  had  been  overthrown, 
but  Semipelagianism  continued  to  find  valiant  defenders,  especially 
in  its  native  home  of  Southern  Gaul,  until  it  was  definitively  condemned 
(529)  in  the  second  Council  of  Orange,  owing  to  the  influence  of 
Caesarius  of  Aries.  Nor  were  the  Christological  questions  forgotten  by 
Latin  writers  of  this  period;  they  found  investigators  in  almost  all  parts 
of  the  West.  The  Germanic  tribes  that  had  overflowed  to  the  South 
and  the  West  were  all  originally  Arian,  and  their  conversion  neces- 
sitated the  study  and  discussion  of  the  ecclesiastical  teaching  con- 
cerning Jesus  Christ.  Chosen  instruments  of  divine  Providence  de- 
voted their  lives  and  their  learning  to  the  re-union  of  these  misguided 
peoples  with  the  Church.  In  Southern  Gaul,  Faustus  of  Reji  was 
the  apostle  of  the  Visigoths,  while  Avitus  of  Vienne  was  that  of 
Burgundy.  In  Africa,  Vigilius  of  Tapsus  and  Fulgentius  of  Ruspe 
entered  the  lists  against  Arianism,  though  all  their  efforts  were  made 


tgS  THIRD   PERIOD.      THIRD   SECTION. 

fruitless  by  the  cruel  tyranny  of  the  Vandal  princes.  Martin  of  Bracara 
begins  the  conversion  of  the  Suabian  tribes  in  Spain,  while  Leander 
of  Seville  prepares  the  way  for  the  return  of  the  Visigoths  of  Spain 
to  the  unity  of  Catholicism.  In  this  period  the  theological  science 
of  the  West  was  wisely  mindful  of  the  future.  Boethius  and  Cassio- 
dorius  devoted  themselves  unceasingly  to  preserving  for  later  ages  the 
substance  of  contemporary  classical  culture.  Similarly,  the  writings 
of  Isidore  of  Seville,  the  greatest  polyhistor  of  his  time,  were  parti- 
cularly helpful  in  familiarizing  the  Germanic  peoples  with  Roman 
science;  they  made  it  possible  to  create  again  a  civilized  existence 
in  the  midst  of  surrounding  barbarism. 

3.  AWAKENING  OF  THE  THEOLOGICAL  SCIENCES.  —  The  circum- 
stances of  the  time  did  not  call  for  apologetical  treatises.  Sal- 
vianus  of  Marseilles  defended  divine  Providence  against  the  objections 
of  many  who  were  scandalized  by  the  horrors  of  the  age.  Fulgentius 
of  Ruspe,  the  most  capable  dogmatic  theologian  of  the  sixth  century, 
an  opponent  of  Arianism  and  a  defender  of  the  teaching  of  St.  Augus- 
tine on  grace,  wrote  a  useful  compendium  of  dogmatic  theology. 
Most  of  the  contemporary  theological  writings  were  polemical  in 
character.  Faustus  of  Reji  wrote  in  favor  of  Semipelagianism  and 
against  the  predestinationism  of  the  priest  Lucidus.  Other  Semi- 
pelagian  writers  were  Arnobius  Junior,  Gennadius  of  Marseilles,  and 
the  unknown  author  of  the  Praedestinatus.  Foremost  in  the  conflict 
with  Semipelagianism  stands  Fulgentius  of  Ruspe.  Arianism,  Mace- 
donianism,  Nestorianism,  and  Eutychianism  found  opponents  among 
the  Latin  theologians  and  among  them  such  men  as  Faustus  of  Reji, 
Gennadius  of  Marseilles,  Avitus  of  Vienne  in  Gaul,  Vigilius  of  Tapsus, 
Pope  Gelasius  and  Boethius  in  Italy,  Leander  of  Seville  in  Spain. 
The  first  edict  of  Justinian  against  the  Three  Chapters  aroused  long 
and  heated  discussions,  particularly  in  Italy  and  Africa.  In  the  latter 
province  these  controversies  drew  into  the  arena  Fulgentius  Ferrandus, 
Facundus  of  Hermiane,  Verecundus  of  Junca,  Liberatus  of  Carthage, 
and  others,  while  in  Italy  Pelagius,  archdeacon  and  pope,  the  deacon 
Rusticus,  and  others,  figured  prominently.  In  exegesis  the  allegorico- 
mystical  interpretation  attained  sole  supremacy.  Arnobius  Junior  wrote 
commentaries  on  the  Psalms,  Primasius  of  Adrumetum  on  the  Apo- 
calypse, Cassiodorius  on  the  Psalms  and  several  books  of  the  New 
Testament,  Justus  of  Urgel  on  the  Canticle  of  canticles,  Gregory 
the  Great  on  the  Book  of  Job.  Junilius  composed  an  introduction  to 
the  Scripture  that  was  executed  quite  in  the  spirit  of  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia.  Cassiodorius  wrote  a  methodology  of  theological  studies 
in  which  he  assigned  the  central  position  to  biblical  science.  The 
exegetical  labors  of  Victor  of  Capua  have  perished;  on  the  contrary 
many  treatises  of  Isidore  of  Seville  have  survived,  they  deal  with 
the   history,   archaeology   and    exegesis   of  the    Bible.     In   history 


§    IIO.      GENERAL    CONSPECTUS.  599 

the  chroniclers  make  their  appearance ;  each  one  continues  his  prede- 
cessor as  far  as  his  own  time.  Among  them  are  Hydatius,  Marcel- 
linus  Comes,  Cassiodorius,  Victor  of  Tunnuna,  John  of  Biclaro,  Marius 
of  Avenches.  In  his  Historia  tripartita  Cassiodorius  prepared  a 
manual  of  Church  history  for  the  mediaeval  world.  Valuable  special 
histories  were  written  in  this  period.  Thus,  Cassiodorius  wrote  a 
history  of  the  Goths  that  has  reached  us  only  in  extracts,  while 
Gregory  of  Tours  wrote  an  ecclesiastical  history  of  the  Franks. 
Less  useful  is  the  history  or  chronicle  of  the  Spanish  Visigoths  that 
we  owe  to  Isidore  of  Seville.  The  modest  Vita  S.  Severini  of  the 
abbot  Fugippius  throws  light  on  the  history  of  barbarian  Germany. 
Victor  Vitensis  wrote  a  history  of  the  persecutions  of  African  Catholics 
by  their  Vandal  masters.  The  history  of  heresy  owes  something  to 
the  works  of  the  author  of  Praedestinatus  and  to  Liberatus  of  Car- 
thage. In  turn,  the  history  of  theological  literature  is  indebted  to 
Gennadius  of  Marseilles  and  Isidore  of  Seville.  Gregory  of  Tours 
and  Venantius  Fortunatus  wrote  hagiological  works.  Ecclesiastical 
chronology  was  cultivated  and  advanced  by  Dionysius  Exiguus. 
Practical  theology  is  represented  by  Salvianus  of  Marseilles,  Julianus 
Pomerius,  Martin  of  Bracara,  Gregory  the  Great.  In  this  field  the 
latter  is  easily  foremost;  his  Regula  pastor alis  is  a  manual  of  didactic 
theology  that  manifests  on  every  page  a  profound  knowledge  of  man 
and  abounds  in  practical  wisdom.  His  Dialogi  met  also  with  uni- 
versal approval;  they  are  narratives  filled  with  the  miracles  of  holy 
men  and  were  intended  to  serve  as  spiritual  reading  for  Christians. 
Canon  Law  owes  to  Dionysius  Exiguus  a  collection  of  the  ecclesiastic- 
al canons  (the :  Dionysiana) ;  he  inserted  in  it  not  only  the  synodal 
decrees,  but  also  many  decretal  letters  of  the  popes  in  their  historic- 
al order.  Similarly,  his  younger  contemporaries  Fulgentius  Ferrandus, 
Cresconius,  and  Martin  of  Bracara,  made  systematic  collections  of 
ancient  canonical  materials  and  enlarged  them.  Monastic  rules  were 
drawn  up  by  Benedict  Of  Nursia,  Csesarius  of  Aries,  Aurelianus  of 
Aries,  Leander  of  Seville,  Isidore  of  Seville.  Among  them  the  Rule 
of  St.  Benedict  alone  survived  and  spread  so  widely  that  he  became 
the  acknowledged  patriach  of  all  the  monks  of  the  West.  Gregory 
of  Tours  left  some  works  of  a  liturgical  character.  Faustus  of  Reji 
and  Caesarius  of  Aries  are  known  as  authors  of  homilies.  The  latter 
was  hailed  by  his  contemporaries  as  the  greatest  popular  orator  of 
the  ancient  Latin  Church.  In  poetry  there  are  some  shining  names: 
Apollinaris  Sidonius,  Ennodius  of  Pavia,  Venantius  Fortunatus,  though 
the  first  two  can  scarcely  be  called  ecclesiastical  poets.  Epic  poetry 
was  cultivated  by  Paulinus  of  Pella  and  Paulinus  of  Petricordia.  More 
important  are  the  didactico-lyrical  effusions  of  the  African  writer 
Dracontius,  and  the  long  didactico-epic  poem  of  Avitus  of  Vienne. 
In  some  of  his  hymns  Venantius  Fortunatus  surpassed  himself. 


5oO  THIRD   PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 

§  in.    Faustus  of  Reji. 

1.  HIS  LIFE.  —  This  writer  whom  John  Cassian  (§  96,  1)  calls 
the  most  active  champion  of  Semipelagianism  in  its  primitive  form, 
was  born  in  Britain  early  in  the  fifth  century.  He  was  still  a  young 
man  when  he  devoted  himself  to  the  service  of  God  in  the  famous 
monastery  of  Lerins  (§  96,  2).  In  433  he  succeeded  the  abbot 
Maximus  on  the  occasion  of  the  latter's  elevation  to  the  see  of  Reji 
(now  Riez  in  Provence),  where  he  was  also  (452)  the  successor  of 
Maximus.  His  literary  labors  belong  to  this  period  of  his  life. 
About  478  he  was  exiled  by  the  Visigothic  king,  Eurich,  for  the 
zeal  with  which  he  opposed  the  Arian  heresy  in  the  latter's  kingdom ; 
at  the  death  of  the  king  (485),  however,  he  was  allowed  to  return  to 
his  see.  His  subsequent  history  is  unknown  to  us.  Faustus  was  one 
of  the  most  influential  and  authoritative  bishops  of  Southern  Gaul 
between  450  and  500.  About  480  Gennadius  of  Marseilles  wrote 
of  him : 1  viva  voce  egregius  doctor  et  creditur  et  probatur.  He 
had  a  reputation  for  eminent  sanctity,  and  amid  contemporary  contro- 
versies was  honored  by  all  as  an  oracle  of  theological  wisdom.  Never- 
theless his  anthropological  principles  were  vigorously  opposed  by 
several  of  his  contemporaries,  and  much  more  so  by  theologians  of 
the  next  generation. 

2.  HIS  WORKS.  —  Gennadius2  places  first  among  the  writings 
of  the  bishop  of  Reji  his :  (liber)  De  Spiritu  Sancto,  in  quo  ostendit 
eum  iuxta  fidem  patrum  et  consubstantialem  et  coaeternalem  esse 
Patri  et  Filio  ac  plenitudinem  Trinitatis  obtinentem.  This  work  has 
reached  us,  but  in  most  manuscripts  is  erroneously  attributed  to  the 
Roman  deacon  Paschasius,  who  died  about  500  and  was  really  the 
author  of  a  (lost)  treatise:  De  Spiritu  Sancto.  Until  very  lately  all 
editions  of  the  work  attributed  it  to  Paschasius 3.  Engelbrecht  was 
the  first  to  show  (1891)  that  it  belongs  to  Faustus  of  Reji.  Very 
similar  in  contents  is  another  work  mentioned  by  Gennadius  as  the 
third  of  our  author's  writings:  Adversus  Arianos  et  Macedonianos 
parvus  libellus,  in  quo  coessentialem  praedicat  Trinitatem.  The  iden- 
tity of  this  work  is  disputed.  Engelbrecht  recognizes  it  in  the  De 
ratione  fidei  (lacking  in  Migne)  edited  by  Sichard  in  1528  and  by 
him  attributed  to  Faustus  of  Reji.  Rehling  identifies  it  with  the 
first  part  of  a  separately  circulated  letter  written  by  Faustus  to  an 
unknown  person,  whom,  however,  he  addresses  as:  reverendissime 
sacerdotum  *.  Gennadius  places  second  among  the  writings  of  Faustus 
an:  opus  egregium  de  gratia  Dei  qua  salvamur.  It  is  the:  De  gratia 
libri  duo  5,  a  refutation  of  the  predestinationism  of  Lucidus,  a  Gallic 
priest,  among  whose  teachings  those  concerning  the  total  extinction 

J  De  viris  ill.,  c.  85.  »  L/  c.  3  Cf.  m         pL     ^ 

lb.,  Mil.  837—845.  6  Ib.,  lviii.  783-836. 


§    III.     FAUSTUS   OF   REJI.  60I 

of  free  will  as  the  result  of  original  sin,  the  limited  extent  of 
the  grace  of  redemption,  and  predestination  to  eternal  damnation, 
were  condemned  at  the  synods  of  Aries  (about  473)  and  Lyons 
(about  474).  It  was  in  reply  to  the  request  of  the  Fathers  of  these 
councils,  particularly  of  the  archbishop  Leontius  of  Aries,  for  a 
theological  refutation  of  Lucidus,  that  Faustus  composed  this  work. 
Here  as  elsewhere  he  is  a  vigorous  opponent  both  of  Pelagianism 
and  of  Predestinationism ;  his  standpoint  is  the  Semipelagianism  of 
John  Cassian.  He  vehemently  denies  the  necessity  of  a  gratia  prae- 
veniens  in  the  sense  of  Augustine.  In  an  earlier  letter  to  Lucidus1 
he  admits  a  gratia  praecedens,  but  he  understands  thereby  only 
the  external  grace  of  revelation.  He  writes  with  some  indignation 
against  the  concept  of  a  gratia  specialis  et  personalis,  as  it  is 
presented  in  the  Augustinian  theory  of  predestination.  Positive  op- 
position to  the  views  of  Faustus  was  not  slow  in  manifesting  itself 
(§  102,  2).  The  little  treatise  that  is  next  mentioned  by  Gennadius: 
(libellus)  Adversus  eos  qui  dicunt  esse  in  creaturis  aliquid  incorporeum, 
is  certainly  identical  with  the  letter  ad  reverendissimwti  sacerdotum, 
or  with  its  second  part,  that  was  possibly  current  as  a  separate 
treatise.  In  it  Faustus  maintains  a  certain  corporeity  of  the  human 
soul,  even  of  angels,  as  an  inevitable  result  of  their  existence  in 
space.  To  refute  these  views  Claudius  Mamertus  composed  his  work : 
De  statu  animae.  Gennadius  mentions  two  other  letters  of  Faustus, 
one  of  a  dogmatico-polemical  character  to  Graecus,  a  Nestorian  dea- 
con (written  at  Lerins  before  452),  and  the  other  an  exhortatory 
and  ascetic  missive  to  Felix,  patricius  and  praefectus  praetorii  (written 
during  his  exile  and  before  480).  In  all,  ten  letters  of  Faustus  have 
reached  us,  five  of  which  are  addressed  to  Ruricius,  bishop  of  Li- 
moges. Gennadius  knew  the  titles  of  other  works  (scripta)  of  Faustus, 
but  he  did  not  mention  them  because  he  had  not  yet  read  them. 
It  is  very  probable  that  he  speaks  of  such  minor  writings  as  letters 
and  sermons.  Faustus  certainly  composed  many  sermons,  but  they 
have  reached  us  in  anonymous  form  or  under  other  names.  One 
reason  of  the  difficulty  experienced  in  recognizing  and  describing 
the  sermons  of  Faustus  comes  from  the  fact  that  his  younger  con- 
temporaries and  disciples,  particularly  Csesarius  of  Aries,  regularly 
drew  from  his  sermons,  recast  them,  or  embodied  them  entirely  in 
their  own  discourses.  Engelbrecht  claims  as  Faustus'  property  the 
pseudo-Eusebian  Homiliae  56  ad  populum  et  monachos  (§61,  2), 
also  a  collection  of  22  sermons  still  unedited.  It  must  be  admitted, 
however,  that  the  Durlach  (now  Carlsruhe)  manuscript  contains  other 
sermons  that  do  not  belong  to  Faustus,  but  to  Caesarius  of  Aries. 
The  style  of  Faustus  is  vigorous  and  lively,  but  deficient  in  ease 
and  grace.    He  seeks  a  certain  effect  in  his  exposition,  and  aims  at 

1  Ib.,  liii.  683. 


602  THIRD    PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 

rhythmic  cadence.  His  prolixity  often  renders  his  thought  nebulous 
and  vague.  He  loves  to  repeat  himself;  the  same  words  and  phrases 
recur  over  and  over  again  in  his  writings. 

3.    WORKS    ON    FAUSTUS.       PASCHASIUS.       LUCIDUS.       PAULINUS     OF     BURDI- 

gala.  —  The  first  complete  edition  of  the  writings  of  Faustus  was 
published  by  A.  Engelbrecht,  Fausti  Reiensis  praeter  sermones  pseudo-Euse- 
bianos  opera.  Accedunt  Ruricii  epistulae.  Rec.  A.  E.,  Vienna,  1891 
(Corpus  script,  eccles.  lat.,  vol.  xxi).  Engelbrecht  had  already  published  as 
prolegomena  to  this  edition:  Studien  über  die  Schriften  des  Bischofs  von 
Reii  Faustus,  Vienna,  1889;  cf.  Zeitschr.  für  die  Österreich.  Gymnasien 
(1890),  xli.  289  —  301,  and  his  epilegomena  were:  Patristische  Analekten, 
Vienna,  1892.  Migne  published  under  the  name  of  Faustus  the:  De  gratia 
(PL.,  Iviii.  783—836),  nineteen  letters  (Ib.,  835 — 870);  the  letter  ad  Luci- 
dum presbyterum  (Ib.,  liii.,  681—683),  and  eight  sermones  (Ib.,  869—890).  — 
The  evidence  that  Faustus  wrote  the  De  Spiritu  Sancto  was  collected  chiefly 
by  C.  P.  Caspari,  Ungedruckte  Quellen  zur  Gesch.  des  Taufsymbols  und 
der  Glaubensregel,  Christiania,  1869,  ii.  214 — 224.  After  new  researches 
Engelbrecht  reached  identical  conclusions,  Studien  über  die  Schriften  des 
Bischofs  von  Reii  Faustus  (1889),  pp.  28—46.  —  There  is  extant  one 
letter  of  Paschasius  the  Roman  deacon  {Migne,  PL.,  lxii.  39 — 40).  In  the 
Katholik  (1887),  ii.  386 — 406,  S.  Bäumer  undertook  to  identify  the  parvus 
libellus  Adversus  Arianos  et  Macedonianos  with  the  Breviarium  fidei  ad- 
versus  Arianos  {Migne,  1.  c,  xiii.  653 — 672);  while  F.  Cabrol,  in  Revue 
des  questions  historiques  (1890),  xlvii.  232  —  243,  identifies  it  with  the  Liber 
testimoniorum  fidei  first  edited  by  Pitra  under  the  name  of  St.  Augustine 
(§94,  6  16).  Engelbrecht  thinks  otherwise,  in  Zeitschr.  für  die  österr. 
Gymnasien ,  1.  c. ;  so  again  does  B.  Rehling ,  De  Fausti  Reiensis  epist. 
tertia  (epist.  ad  reverendissimum  sacerdotum),  Diss,  inaug.,  Münster,  1898. 
Among  the  twelve  letters  in  Engelbrechfs  edition  (pp.  159 — 220)  are  two 
addressed  to  Faustus,  one  by  the  aforesaid  Lucidus  (pp.  165 — 168),  and 
the  other  (pp.  181 — 183)  by  a  certain  Paulinus  of  Burdigala  (Bordeaux). 
The  latter  is  perhaps  identical  with  the  author  (Gennad.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  68) 
of  certain  treatises  or:  tractatus  de  initio  quadragesimae,  de  die  dominico 
paschae,  de  obedientia,  de  poenitentia,  de  neophytis.  An  edition  of  all 
the  letters  of  Faustus  of  Reji  and  Ruricius  of  Limoges  was  brought  out  by 
Br.  Krusch  as  an  appendix  to  the  edition  of  Sidonius  Apollinaris  by 
C.  Lütjohann,  Monum.  Germ.  hist.  Auct.  antiquiss.,  Berlin,  1877,  viii.  265  ff. 
In  Engelbrechfs  edition  are  found  thirty-one  sermons:  Sermones  codice 
Durlacensi  servati  (1—22),  Sermones  varii  (23—31).  The  two  pseudo- 
Eusebian  homilies  (9—10)  treat  of  the  creed,  and  are  surely  the  work  of 
Faustus ;  they  were  edited  by  Caspari,  in  Ungedruckte  Quellen  zur  Gesch. 
des  Taufsymbols  und  der  Glaubensregel,  Christiania,  1869,  ii.  183—213, 
also  in  his  Kirchenhistorische  Anekdota,  Christiania,  1883,  i.  315—341. 
In  Alte  und  neue  Quellen  etc.,  Christiania,  1879,  pp.  250— 281,  he  publish- 
ed for  the  first  time  an  anonymous  Tractatus  de  symbolo,  that  Engel- 
brecht considers  to  be  a  homily  of  Faustus,  and  not  a  compilation  from  his 
homilies,  as  the  editor  thinks.  Cf.  Engelbrecht,  Studien  etc.,  pp.  47—102: 
«Über  die  Predigten  des  Faustus  und  ihre  Echtheit».  G.  Morin,  in  Revue 
Benedictine  (1892),  ix.  49—61  (the  reply  of  Engelbrecht  is  in  Zeitschrift 
f.  die  osterr  Gymn.  [1892],  xliii.  961—976,  and  [1893],  x.  62-77),  differs 
ut^ti  EnZelbrecht  in  his  criticism  of  the  composition  of  the  sermons. 
W.  Bergmann,  m  Studien  zu  einer  kritischen  Sichtung  der  südgallischen 
Predigthteratur  des  5.  und  6.  Jahrhunderts,  I:  Der  handschriftlich  be- 
zeugte Nachlass  des  Faustus  von  Reji,  Leipzig,    1898  (Studien  zur  Gesch. 


§    III.      FAUSTUS    OF   REJI.  603 

der  Theol.  und  der  Kirche,  i.  4)  agrees  substantially  with  Morin.  The 
latter  attributes  also  to  Faustus  the :  De  septem  ordinibus  ecclesiae  (Migne, 
PL.,  xxx.  148—162)  found  amid  the  works  of  St.  Jerome;  cf.  Revue 
Benedictine  (1891),  viii.  97—104.  Engelbrecht  rejects  this  opinion  of  Morin, 
in  Patristische  Analekten  (1892),  pp.  5—19.  Caspari  edited  (Briefe, 
Abhandlungen  und  Predigten  etc.,  Christiania,  1890,  pp.  202 — 206) 
an  anonymous  sermon  on  the  question:  «Why  did  Christ  deliver  huma- 
nity from  the  power  of  the  devil  not  by  divine  power,  but  by  His  in- 
carnation, fulfilment  of  the  Law,  passion  and  death?»  This  short  and 
popular  Cur  Deus  homo  of  the  ancient  Latin  Church  was  probably  com- 
posed by  some  younger  contemporary  writer  in  Southern  Gaul;  cf.  Cas- 
pari, 1.  c,  pp.  411 — 429.  A.  Koch,  Der  hl.  Faustus,  Bischof  von  Riez. 
Eine  dogmengeschichtliche  Monographie,  Stuttgart,  1895.  F.  Wörter,  Zur 
Dogmengeschichte  des  Semipelagianismus  (II:  Die  Lehre  des  Faustus  von 
Riez),  Münster,  1900  (Kirchengeschichtliche  Studien,  v.  2). 

4.  LEONTius  of  arles.  RURicius  of  limoges.  —  A  letter  of  Leontius, 
archbishop  of  Arles  (see  no.  2),  to  Pope  Hilary  in  462  is  found  amid  the 
letters  of  that  pope  (§  114,  1).  Most  of  Pope  Hilary's  letters  are  address- 
ed to  Leontius  (Migne,  PL.,  lviii.  22 — 23);  Epist.  Rom.  Pontif.,  ed.  Thiel, 
i.  138 — 139;  cf.  Hist.  litt,  de  la  France,  Paris,  1735  1865,  ii.  511 — 514. — 
Ruricius  (see  no.  2),  bishop  of  Limoges  from  485  (f  after  507),  left  eighty- 
two  letters  (Migne,  PL.,  lviii.  67 — 124)  in  two  books,  without  any  chrono- 
logical order.  They  are  of  slight  importance  and  are  mostly  complimentary 
epistles  to  friendly  bishops  like  Faustus  and  Apollinaris  Sidonius,  and  others. 
We  have  already  mentioned  (no.  3)  the  two  new  editions  of  these  letters  by 
Br.  Krusch  (1887)  and  A.  Engelbrecht  (1891).  Both  editions  contain  also 
eight  letters  of  various  individuals  to  Ruricius:  in  the  manuscripts  they 
are  inserted  after  his  letters;  cf.  Acta  SS.  Oct.,  Brussels,  1853,  viii.  59 
to  76.     Engelbrecht,  Patristisclje  Analekten,  Vienna,  1892,  pp.  20 — 83. 

5.  claudianus  mamertus.  —  Cteudianus  Ecdicius  Mamertus,  the  afore- 
mentioned opponent  of  Faustus  of  Reji,  was  a  priest  of  Vienne  (in  Dau- 
phine),  and  the  chief  support  of  his  brother  St.  Mamertus,  bishop  of  that 
see.  He  died  about  474.  His  friend  Apollinaris  Sidonius  has  left  us  a 
very  flattering  necrology  of  him  (Epist.  iv.  11).  About  468  or  469  Clau- 
dianus composed  his  work:  De  statu  animae  (Migne,  PL,,  liii.  697 — 780) 
in  three  books;  in  it  he  defends,  against  Faustus,  the  incorporeity  of  the 
human  soul.  He  dedicated  the  work  to  Sidonius,  who  styles  it  (Epist. 
iv.  3 ;  cf.  v.  2)  a  work  excellent  in  every  way.  In  spite  of  some  defects 
it  merits  the  encomia  of  Sidonius:  the  author  is  evidently  a  disciple  of 
St.  Augustine,  very  learned  for  his  time,  and  a  skilful  dialectician.  Two 
of  his  letters  are  extant  (Migne,  1.  c,  liii.  779 — 786):  one  to  Sidonius,  and 
another  to  Sapaudus,  a  rhetorician  of  Vienne.  Some  hymns  were  formerly 
ascribed  to  him  (Ib.,  liii.  785 — 790),  but  his  authorship  is  now  partly  very 
doubtful,  partly  quite  abandoned.  Most  of  them  (In  Jacobum  mag.  eq., 
Carmen  paschale,  two  Greek  epigrams,  Laus  Christi,  Miracula  Christi)  are 
also  current  under  the  name  of  Claudius  Claudianus  (§  79,  5).  Sidonius 
mentions  (Ep.  iv.  3)  with  praise  a  hymn  of  Claudian  that  has  not  yet 
been  identified.  —  A  new  edition  of  the  works  of  Claudianus  Mamertus 
(minus  the  traditional  poems)  was  published  by  A.  Engelbrecht,  Vienna, 
1885  (Corpus  Script,  eccl.  lat,  vol.  xi).  The  Migne  text  (PL.,  liii)  is  a 
reprint  from  Gallandi,  Bibl.  vet.  Patr.,  x.  The  famous  hymn:  Pange  lingua 
gioriosi,  ascribed  by  Gallandi  to  Claudianus  Mamertus,  is  really  the  work 
of  Venantius  Fortunatus  (§  117,  3).  For  the  Carmina  dubiae  auctoritatis 
see  Teuffei- Schwabe ,  Gesch.  der  röm.  Lit.,  5.  ed.,  p.  1202.  M.  Schulze, 
Die  Schrift   des  Claudianus   Mamertus,   Presbyters   zu  Vienne:    «De   statu 


604  THIRD   PERIOD.      THIRD   SECTION. 

animae»,  im  Auszuge  mit  kritischen  Untersuchungen,  Dresden,  1883. 
A  Engelbrecht,  Untersuchungen  über  die  Sprache  des  Claudianus  Mamertus, 
Vienna,  1885.  R.  de  la  Broise ,  Mamerti  Claudiani  vita  eiusque  doctrina 
de  anima  hominis  (These),  Paris,   1890. 

6.     ARNOBIUS  JUNIOR.       »PRAEDESTINATUS».      VINCENTIUS.  Of  AmoblUS 

Junior,  so  called  to  distinguish  him  from  Arnobius  of  Sicca,  we  know  little 
save  that  he  was  born  in  Gaul  and  that  he  wrote  (about  460)  long  Com- 
mentarii  in  Psalmos  (Migne,  PL.,  liii.  327-~57o)-  His  exegesis  is  entirely 
allegorical;  he  is  an  opponent  of  St.  Augustine's  doctrine  on  grace.  He 
is  erroneously  credited  with  the  authorship  of:  Adnotationes  ad  quae- 
dam  evangeliorum  loca  (Migne,  PL.,  liii.  569—580),  a  loose  collection 
of  scholia  on  particular  passages  in  John,  Matthew  and  Luke,  freely 
pillaged  by  the  pseudo-Theophilus  of  Antioch  in  his  Gospel-commentary 
(§  21,  3).  In  the  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1897),  lxxix.  555-— 568^  B.  Grundl 
maintains  that  these  Adnotationes  were  written  before  the  reign  of  Con- 
stantine.  G.  Morin  published  in  Pages  inedites  d'Arnobius  le  jeune:  la 
fin  des  «expositiunculae»  sur  l'evangile,  Revue  Benedictine  (1903),  xx.  64 
to  76,  a  new  and  distinct  recension  of  the  fourth  adnotatio  on  Luke, 
together  with  nine  other  adnotationes  hitherto  unknown,  also  incorporated 
with  his  Gospel-commentary  by  pseudo-Theophilus.  Morin  is  of  opinion 
that  this  Arnobius  is  probably  an  Illyrian,  who  lived  at  Rome;  he  main- 
tains that  he  is  the  author  of  the  Adnotationes,  the  Conflictus,  and  the 
Praedestinatus.  The  Conflictus  Arnobii  catholici  cum  Serapione  Aegyptio 
(Migne,  1.  c,  liii.  239 — 322)  affects  the  form  of  a  dialogue  in  presence  of 
arbiters;  it  is  an  anti-Monophysite  work  that  aims  at  proving  the  perfect 
concord  of  Rome  (Leo  I.)  with  the  great  doctors  of  the  Alexandrine 
Church.  The  unquestioning  acceptance  by  the  author  of  the  authority  of 
St.  Augustine  prevents  us  from  accepting  it  as  a  work  of  Arnobius ;  neither 
can  it  be  attributed  with  S.  Bäumer,.Ka.iho\ikJ<i&&7),  ii.  398—406,  to  Faustus 
of  Reji.  Grundl  thinks  (1.  c,  pp.  52^ — 568)  that  it  was  composed  about 
552  by  a  Roman  monk  Arnobius.  —  The  anonymous  work  Praedestinatus 
sive  praedestinatorum  haeresis  et  libri  S.  Augustino  temere  adscripti  re- 
futatio  (Ib.,  liii.  587—672)  was  first  edited  by  J.  Sirmond  in  1643,  and 
subdivided  by  him  into  three  books.  In  the  first  are  described  ninety 
heresies  from  Simon  Magus  to  the  Predestinationists ;  in  this  narrative  are 
many  problematical  or  fabulous  statements  (this  book  is  also  printed  in 
Fr.  Oehler,  Corpus  haereseologicum,  Berlin,  1856,  i.  227—268);  the  second 
book  describes  the  contents  of  an  apology  for  Predestinationism  current 
under  the  name  of  St.  Augustine ,  while  the  third  refutes  the  same  from 
a  Semipelagian  standpoint.  Intrinsic  evidence  points  to  Southern  Gaul 
and  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century  as  place  and  time  of  composition ;  by 
reason  of  similarities  of  style  and  subject-matter  the  author  of  the  Com- 
mentarii  in  Psalmos  (Arnobius  junior)  may  well  be  and  probably  is  the 
author  of  «Praedestinatus».  V.  H.  v.  Schubert,  Der  sogen.  Praedestinatus. 
Em  Beitrag  zur  Geschichte  des  Pelagianismus.  Texte  und  Untersuchungen, 
new  series  ix.  4,  Leipzig,  1903.  This  writer  rejects  the  authorship  of 
Arnobius  Junior,  and  suggests,  with  much  reserve,  the  name  of  Anianus 
a  7t'  I4,;  9^  6'*  I4'  Faure>  Die  Widerlegung  der  Häretiker  im  1.  Buche 
des  Praedestinatus  (Dissert.),  Göttingen,  1903.  The  Commentarius  in  Psal- 
mos of  Vmcentius,  a  priest  of  Southern  Gaul  in  the  second  half  of  the 
fifth  century,  mentioned  by  Gennadius  (De  viris  ill.,  c.  80),  may  be  identical 
with  the  Commentarius  in  lxxv  Psalmos,  printed  among  the  works  of  Ru- 
finus  (Mzgne,  PL.,  641-960;  cf.  63-66).  -  Gennadius  mentions  (1.  c, 
c.  75)  ascetical  works  of  Paulus,  a  priest  of  Pannonia  between  450  and 
500;  they  have  perished. 


§    112.      OTHER    GALLIC    WRITERS.  605 

§  112.    Other  Gallic  writers. 

I.  SALVIANUS  OF  MARSEILLES.  —  Salvianus  was  born  of  dis- 
tinguished parents  in  Gaul  and  probably  in  the  neighborhood  of  Co- 
logne 1  towards  the  end  of  the  fourth  century.  In  his  youth  he  led  a 
rather  dissolute  life.  After  his  own  conversion  he  succeeded  in  win- 
ning over  his  pagan  wife  Palladia,  not  only  to  the  Christian  faith,  but 
to  the  practice  of  perfect  continency  in  the  married  state.  We  still 
possess  the  touching  letter  in  which  Salvianus,  his  wife  and  daughter, 
justify  their  conduct  to  the  parents  of  Palladia,  themselves  Christian 
converts,  but  incapable  of  comprehending  such  a  state  of  continency  2. 
About  424,  apparently,  Salvianus  was  ordained  to  the  priesthood 
and  entered  the  monastery  of  Lerins3.  At  a  later  date  he  was  liv- 
ing at  Marseilles  (till  about  480),  a  vigorous  old  man4.  He  wrote 
many  works,  among  which  Gennadius  mentions :  De  virginitatis  bono 
ad  Marcellum  presbyterum  libros  tres,  Adversum  avaritiam  libros 
quattuor,  De  praesenti  iudicio  libros  quinque  et  pro  eorum  prooemio 
satisfactionis  ad  Salonium  episcopum  librum  unum  et  expositionis 
extremae  partis  libri  Ecclesiastes  ad  Claudium  episcopum  Viennensem 
librum  unum,  epistolarum  librum  unum  et  in  morem  Graecorum  de 
principio  Genesis  usque  ad  conditionem  hominis  composuit  versu 
Hexaemeron  librum  unum,  homilias  episcopis  factas  multas,  sacra- 
mentorum  vero  quantas  (?)  nee  recordor.  Of  these  works  only  the 
Adversum  avaritiam,  the  De  praesenti  iudicio,  and  nine  letters  re- 
main. The  first  work,  written  between  435  and  439,  is  entitled  in 
the  manuscripts:  Ad  ecclesiam.  It  begins:  Timotheus  minimus  ser- 
vorum  Dei  ecclesiae  catholicae  toto  orbe  diffusae.  As  a  check  to 
the  prevalent  avarice  that  refused  its  own  to  God,  that  is  to  the 
Church  and  the  poor,  Salvianus  urges  on  all  Christians  and  parti- 
cularly on  ecclesiastics  the  duty  of  bestowing  alms  and  gifts  upon 
the  Church;  he  insists  especially  on  the  obligation  of  making  the 
Church  one's  heir  by  will.  Such  doctrine  is  better  appreciated  when 
we  remember  that  all  public  care  of  the  poor  was  then  incumbent 
upon  the  Church ,  and  that  pauperism  was  assuming  incredible  pro- 
portions. In  a  letter  (Ep.  9)  to  his  disciple  Salonius,  bishop  of 
Geneva  (§  96,  2),  Salvianus  explains  the  reason  for  his  pseudo- 
nym Timotheus.  Gennadius  has  erroneously  connected  this  letter 
(Satisfactionis  ad  Salonium  episcopum  librum  unum)  with  the  work 
De  praesenti  iudicio.  This  latter  work  was  finished  between  439  and 
451  and  was  dedicated  to  Salonius;  in  the  manuscripts  it  is  usually 
entitled:  De  gubernatione  Dei,  and  is  divided  into  eight  books.  Its 
aim  is  the  defence  and  justification  of  divine  Providence.  Many  were 
scandalized  at  this  time  by  the  evils  that   from   all   sides   befell   the 

1  Sah.,  De  gub.  Dei,  vi.   13,  72;  Ep.   1.  2  Salv.,  Ep.  4. 

3  Hilar.  Anlat.,  Vita  S.  Honorati  4,    19.  4  Gennad.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  67. 


6o6  THIRD   PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 

Roman  empire  and  especially  by  the  humiliations  that  the  barbarian 
invasions  inflicted  upon  the  Romans.  Salvianus  asserts  that  almost 
the  entire  society  of  Christian  Romans  at  the  time  was  a  sewer 
of  iniquity :  sentina  vitiorum 1.  The  barbarians,  pagans  and  heretics, 
are  morally  superior  to  the  Romans;  the  only  privilege  of  the  latter 
is  their  Catholic  faith,  and  that  can  only  aggravate  their  guilt.  The 
ruin  of  the  empire  is  a  just  judgment  from  God,  long  since  merited; 
it  is  an  irrefragable  proof  that  God  still  governs  the  world.  While 
the  work  Ad  ecclesiam  is  truly  a  mirror  of  contemporary  morality, 
the  De  gubernatione  Dei  reflects  still  more  vividly  the  conditions  of 
Roman  civilization  when  it  was  written.  These  pages  suggest  at 
once  Lactantius;  they  fascinate  the  reader  by  the  purity  of  their 
diction  and  their  rhetorical  elevation,  but  it  must  be  added  that  they 
are  also  very  prolix  and  verbose. 

The  best  of  the  old  editions  is  that  of  Etienne  Baluze ,  Paris,  1663 
1669  1684  (reprinted  in  Migne,  PL.,  liii).  Recent  editions  are  owing  to 
C.  Halm,  Berlin,  1877  (Monum.  Germ.  hist.  Auct.  antiquiss.,  i.  1),  and 
Fr.  Pauly,  Vienna,  1883  (Corpus  script,  eccles.  lat. ,  vol.  viii).  A.  Helf 
translated  into  German  the  De  gubernatione  Dei,  Kempten,  1877  (Biblio- 
thek der  Kirchenväter).  Fr.  X.  Hirner  y  Commentatio  de  Salviano  eiusque 
libellis  (Progr.),  Freising,  1869.  W.  Zschimmer ,  Salvianus,  der  Presbyter 
von  Massilia,  und  seine  Schriften,  Halle,  1875.  A.  Hämmer le,  Studien  zu 
Salvian,  Priester  von  Massilia  (3  progrs.),  Landshut,  1893,  Neuburg,  1897 
1899.  y.  B.  Ullrich,  De  Salviani  scripturae  sacrae  versionibus  (Progr.), 
Neustadt,  1892.  G.  Valran,  Quare  Salvianus  presbyter  Massiliensis  magister 
episcoporum  a  Gennadio  dictus  sit,  Paris,  1899.  &-  Woelfflin,  Alliteration 
und  Reim  bei  Salvian,  in  Archiv  für  latein.  Lexikogr.  u.  Gramm.  (1902), 
xiii.  41 — 49.  —  Certain  theological  treatises  of  a  practical  nature  by  Musaeus, 
a  priest  of  Marseilles  (f  ca.  460) ,  mentioned  by  Gennadius  (De  viris  ill., 
c.  79),  have  perished. 

2.  APOLLINARIS  SIDONIUS.  —  Caius  Sollius  Modestus  Apollinaris 
Sidonius  was  born  at  Lyons  about  430,  and  died  about  482  at  Cler- 
mont. Mommsen  and  Duchesne2  consider  that  his  epitaph  fixes  the 
date  of  his  death  at  Aug.  21.  or  22.,  479.  He  is  the  principal  re- 
presentative of  that  group  of  Gallic  writers  who  professed  Christian 
sentiments  and  even  accepted  ecclesiastical  office,  but  whose  works 
still  reflected  the  genius  of  antique  paganism.  Sidonius  belonged  to 
one  of  the  noblest  families  of  Gaul,  and  had  already  attained  dis- 
tinguished civil  honors  when,  in  469  or  470,  he  was  suddenly  and 
reluctantly  made  bishop  of  the  urbs  Arverna  (now  Clermont-Ferrand), 
an  office  that  carried  with  it  much  political  influence  and  authority. 
His  literary  career  is  evenly  divided  by  this  event.  Hitherto  he  had 
indulged  in  poetical  composition;  tffere  is  still  extant  a  collection  of 
twenty-four  carmina,  among  them  three  long  and  carefully  executed 
panegyrics;    one  on  the  emperor  Avitus   his  father-in-law,    (delivered 

1  De  gub.  Dei,  iii.  9,  44. 

2  Fastes  episcopaux  de  l'ancienne  Gaule,  Paris,    1900,   ii.  34—35. 


§    112.      OTHER    GALLIC   WRITERS.  607 

January  IV,  456,  in  the  Roman  Senate),  another  on  the  emperor 
Majorian  (at  Lyons,  end  of  458),  and  the  third  on  the  emperor 
Anthemius  (at  Rome,  Jan.  1.,  468).  The  entire  collection  treats  of 
profane  themes  and  is  rJagan  in  its  form;  and  it  abounds  in  similes 
and  metaphors  taken  from  mythology.  The  models  of  Sidonius 
are  Claudius  Claudianus,  Statius  and  Vergil,  but  his  imitation  of  them 
does  not  go  beyond  the  exhibition  of  rhetorical,  dialectical  and 
metrical  skill.  After  his  election  to  the  see  of  Clermont,  Sidonius 
abandoned  this  dilettantism  as  incompatible  with  the  serious  character 
of  his  new  vocation  *,  He  devoted  himself  instead  to  the  composition 
of  formal  epistles,  after  the  style  of  Symmachus  and  Pliny.  They 
grew  in  number  until  they  formed  a  collection  in  nine  books,  in- 
cluding letters  that  had  long  since  got  to  their  destination,  and 
others  composed  with  the  express  purpose  of  reaching  the  general 
public  in  this  way.  Both  epistles  and  poetry  are  as  rich  in  fine 
words  as  they  are  jejune  in  thought.  The  epistles,  however,  are  a 
very  valuable  contribution  to  the  history  of  contemporary  Roman 
culture.  They  are  often  varied  and  enlivened  by  metrical  pieces, 
sometimes  of  a  spiritual  character:  inscriptions  for  new  churches, 
epitaphs  for  pious  Christians,  and  the  like.  Sidonius  did  not  execute 
his  intention  of  composing  a  metrical  martyrology  for  Gaul2.  His 
contestatiunculae*  have  perished,  also  the  missae^  composed  by  him. 
Indeed,  we  do  not  know  what  is  meant  by  these  titles. 

His  works  have  been  excellently  edited  by  Chr.  Lütjohann,  Gai  Sollii 
Apollinaris  Sidonii  epistulae  et  carmina,  rec.  et  emend.  Chr.  Lütjohann,  in 
Monum.  Germ.  hist.  Auct.  antiquiss.,  Berlin,  1887,  viii.  After  Lütjohann' s 
death  (April  8.,  1884)  Fr.  Leo  and  Th.  Mommsen  completed  his  work. 
A  minor  edition  of  the  writings  of  Sidonius  is  owing  to  P.  Mohr,  Leipzig, 
1895.  The  edition  oij.  Sirmond,  Paris,  1614  1652,  is  reprinted  in  Migne, 
PL.,  lviii.  A  French  version  of  all  the  writings  of  Sidonius  (with  Latin 
text  and  notes)  was  made  by  J.  F.  Gregoire  and  F.  Z.  Collombet,  Lyons 
and  Paris,  1836,  3  vols.  G.  Kaufmann,  Die  Werke  des  C.  S.  A.  Sidonius 
als  eine  Quelle  für  die  Geschichte  seiner  Zeit  (Inaug.-Diss.) ,  Göttingen, 
1864.  L.  A.  Chaix,  S.  Sidoine- Apollinaire  et  son  siecle,  Clermont-Ferrand, 
1867— t  868,  2  vols.  M.  Büdinger,  Apollinaris  Sidonius  als  Politiker,  Vienna, 
1881.  M.  Müller,  De  Apollinaris  Sidonii  latinitate  (Diss,  inaug.),  Halle, 
1888.  F.  Grupe,  Zur  Sprache  des  Apollinaris  Sidonius  (Progr.),  Zabern, 
1892.  For  other  works  and  dissertations  see  Teuffe '/- Schwabe,  Gesch.  der 
röm.  Lit.,  pp.  1 199—1200.  J.  Nicolas,  La  medecine  dans  les  ceuvres  de 
Sidoine- Apollinaire,  in  Revue  medical  e  du  Mont-Dore,  Clermont-Ferrand, 
1 90 1.  K.  Weyman,  Apollinaris  Sidonius  und  die  miracula  S.  Fidis,  in  Hist. 
Jahrbuch  (1899),  xx.  53—71.  P.  Magaud ,  Un  eveque  des  Gaules  au 
V  siecle,  in  Annales  de  St.  Louis-de-Francais  (1901),  v.  43 5~ 473-  ~  For 
details  concerning  some  contemporary  Gallic  poets  mentioned  by  our 
author:  Consentius,  Lampridius,  Leo,  Peter,  Severianus,  Proclus,  and  others, 
see  Teuffel-Schwabe ,  1.  c,  pp.  1 191— n  94,  and  Manitius,  Gesch.  der  chnstl.- 

1  Ep.  9,    12,  and  the  carmen  in  Ep.  9,    16. 

2  Cf.  the  carmen  in  Ep.   9,    16,   61  ff.  3  Ep.   7,   3- 
4   Greg.   Tur.,  Hist.  Franc,  ii.  22. 


6q8  THIRD    PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 

latein.  Poesie,  Stuttgart,  1891,  pp.  235  —  237.  Auspicius,  bishop  of  Toul 
(about  470)  and  a  friend  of  Sidonius,  left  a  metrical  Epistola  ad  Arbo- 
gastem  comitem  Treverorum  [Migne ,  PL.,  Ixi.  1005— 1008)  edited  by 
IV.  Gundlach,  in  Monum.  Germ.  hist.  Epist.  (1892),  iii.  135— 137;  cf.  Mani- 
tins,  1.  c,  pp.  232  —  234. 

3.  PAULINUS  OF  PELLA  AND  PAULINUS  OF  PETRI CORDIA.  —  Both 
are  Christian  poets  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term.  The  first  was 
born,  probably  about  376,  at  Pella  in  Macedonia,  but  came  to  Bor- 
deaux at  the  age  of  three  years,  where  he  was  brought  up  in  the 
house  of  his  grandfather  Ausonius  (§  88,  5).  The  remainder  of  his 
chequered  life  was  spent  in  Southern  Gaul.  In  459,  being  then  eighty- 
four  years  of  age,  he  composed  his:  Eucharisticos  Deo  sub  eph- 
emeridis  meae  textu,  in  six  hundred  and  sixteen  hexameters;  it  is 
an  autobiography  in  the  form  of  thanksgiving  to  God.  Both  prosody 
and  metre  are  somewhat  neglected  in  this  poem;  it  is  nevertheless 
an  attractive  narrative  and  faithfully  portrays  the  sentiments  of  a  candid 
and  pious  soul  that  amid  many  sufferings  clung  to  its  faith  in  divine 
Providence.  —  We  know  Paulinus  of  Petricordia  (Perigueux)  only 
as  the  author  of  an  epic  poem  finished  about  470:  De  vita  S.  Mar- 
tini episc.  libri  vi.  The  first  three  books  are  an  expansion  of  the 
Vita  Martini  of  Sulpicius  Severus  (§92,  1);  the  fourth  and  fifth 
are  composed  from  the  two  dialogues  of  Severus  (ib.),  while  the 
sixth  is  taken  from  an  account  of  the  miracles  of  St.  Martin  written 
after  his  death  by  Perpetuus,  bishop  of  Tours  (458  —  488).  Perpetuus 
had  induced  Paulinus  to  write  the  work  which  is  dedicated  to  him. 
Two  shorter  poems  written  at  a  later  date  are  added  by  way  of 
appendix:  one  of  eighty  hexameters  on  the  miraculous  cure  of  a 
little  nephew  of  Paulinus  by  laying  upon  him  the  book  of  Perpetuus 
(Versus  Paulini  de  visitatione  nepotuli  sui)  and  an  inscription  in 
twenty-five  hexameters  for  the  new  basilica  built  by  Perpetuus  in 
honor  of  St.  Martin  (Versus  Paulini  de  orantibus). 

The  Eucharisticos  of  Paulinus  of  Pella  was  first  edited  in  1579  by 
M.  de  la  Bigne.  The  most  recent  editions  are  those  by  L.  Leipziger, 
Breslau,  1858,  and  W.  Brandes,  in  Poetae  christiani  minores,  part  I,  Vienna, 
1888  (Corpus  script,  eccles.  lat,  vol.  xvi),  pp.  263  —  334.  His  writings  are 
not  in  Migne.  J.  Rocafort ,  De  Paulini  Pellaei  vita  et  carmine  (These), 
Bordeaux,  1890.  —  Paulinus  of  Petricordia  was  first  edited,  Paris,  1589, 
by  Fr.  Juretus  [Migne,  PL.,  Ixi.  1009- 1076).  Recent  editions  are  owing 
to  E.  F.  Corpet,  Paris,  1852,  and  M.  Petschenig ,  in  Poetae  christiani  mi- 
nores, part  I,  pp.  1— 190.  A.  Hnber,  Die  poetische  Bearbeitung  der  Vita 
S.  Martini  des  Sulpicius  Severus  durch  Paulinus  von  Perigueux  (Progr.), 
Kempten,  1901.  —  The  above  mentioned  account  of  the  miracles  of 
bt.  Martin  by  Perpetuus  of  Tours  has  perished.  The  Testamentum  and 
Epitaphium  Perpetui  episc.  [Migne,  PL.,  lviii.  753—756)  are  forgeries  of 
Vignier;  cf  Julien  Havet  (§  3,  2).  There  is  a  letter  to  Perpetuus  among 
the  aforesaid  epistles  of  Sidonius  (vii.  9). 

4-  GENNADIUS  OF  MARSEILLES.  —  We  possess  but  little  exact 
information  concerning  the  priest  Gennadius   of  Marseilles,    an  histo- 


§  112.   OTHER  GALLIC  WRITERS.  609 

rian  of  ecclesiastical  literature,  who  nourished  in  the  latter  half  of 
.the  fifth  century.  In  an  addition  to  his  De  viris  illustribus  (§2,  2) 
made  by  a  later  hand  we  read  the  following :  Scripsi  adversum  omnes 
haereses  libros  viii  et  adversum  Nestorium  libros  v  et  adversus  Eu- 
tychen  libros  x  et  adversus  Pelagium  iibros  iii  et  tractatus  de  mille 
annis,  de  Apocalypsi  bead  Johannis  et  hoc  opus  et  epistolam  de  fide 
mea  missam  ad  beatum  Gelasium  episcopum  urbis  Romae.  He  tells 
us  himself1  that  he  translated  into  Latin  some  works  of  Greek 
ecclesiastical  writers,  particularly  writings  of  Evagrius  Ponticus  (§  70,  4). 
Most  of  the  works  of  Gennadius  have  perished.  His  De  ecclesiasticis 
dogmatibus,  still  extant,  is  usually  identified  with  the  Epistola  de  fide 
mea.  It  is  really  a  kind  of  profession  of  faith,  though  it  is  not 
epistolary  in  form,  nor  does  it,  with  one  exception  (laudo,  vitupero, 
c.  23)  appear  as  a  personal  document.  Caspari  suggests,  perhaps 
correctly,  that  it  is  a  remnant  of  the  Libri  viii  adversus  omnes  hae- 
reses, or  to  speak  more  particularly,  its  conclusion.  The  actual  text 
is  copiously  interpolated,  but  in  its  original  form  it  was  probably 
composed  in  some  circle  of  Semipelagians ,  then  very  numerous  in 
Southern  Gaul.  Even  the  De  viris  illustribus  of  Gennadius  (§  2,  2) 
exhibits  traces  of  Semipelagianism ,  e.  g.  in  the  articles  on  John 
Cassian,  Faustus  of  Reji,  and  Hilary  of  Aries,  also  in  the  accounts  of 
St.  Augustine,  Prosper   of  Aquitaine,    and    the  popes  of  the  period. 

The  editio  princeps  of  the  De  ecclesiasticis  dogmatibus  was  brought 
out  by  G.  Elmenhorst,  Hamburg,  1614  (Migne,  PL.,  lviii.  979  —  1054,  and 
Fr.  Oehler,  Corpus  haereseologicum,  Berlin,  1856,  i.  335—400).  The  in- 
tegrity of  the  original  text  is  discussed  by  C.  Fr.  Arnold ,  Cäsarius  von 
Arelate,  Leipzig,  1894,  pp.  535  f.  C.  H.  Turner ,  The  Liber  Ecclesiasti- 
corum  Dogmatum  attributed  to  Gennadius,  in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies 
(1905),  vii.  78 — 99.  A  profession  of  faith  entitled:  Gennadius  Massiliensis 
episc.  de  fide  disputans  inter  caetera  dixit,  is  discussed  by  C.  P.  Caspari, 
Kirchenhistorische  Anekdota,  Christiania,   1883,  i.  301 — 304;  cf.  xix— xxiii. 

5.  AVITUS  OF  VIENNE.  —  Saint  Alcimus  Ecdicius  Avitus,  bishop 
of  Vienne  about  490 — 518,  has  been  justly  called  the  pillar  of  Catholic 
faith  and  the  soul  of  ecclesiastical  life  in  the  Burgundian  kingdom. 
His  influence  brought  about  the  conversion  to  Catholicism  of  the 
Arian  king  Sigismund  (516—523).  He  was  an  indefatigable  opponent 
of  all  heresy,  and  especially  of  Semipelagianism;  and  at  the  same 
time  his  zeal  for  a  closer  union  with  the  Roman  Church  contrasts 
strongly  with  the  dissentient  spirit  of  the  Orientals  that  culminated 
in  the  Acacian  schism.  Avitus  considered  that  intimate  relations  with 
the  Apostolic  See  were  necessary  to  ensure  and  further  the  welfare 
of  Christian  civilization  and  the  maintenance  of  religious  authority.  His 
well-known  phrase  clearly  exhibits  this  point  of  view :  Si  papa  urbis 
vocatur  in  dubium,  episcopatus  iam  videbitur,  non  episcopus,  vacillare2. 

1  De  viris  ill.,  cc.    n    72.  2  Ep.   34,  ed.  Paper.      . 

Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  39 


6 10  THIRD    PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 

Foremost  among-  his  writings  is  an  hexameter  poem  in  five  books, 
casually  described  by  himself 1  as:  Libelli  de  spiritalis  historiae  gestis. 
The  title  of  each  book  is  as  follows :  de  mundi  initio,  de  originali  pec- 
cato,  de  sententia  Dei,  de  diluvio  mundi,  de  transitu  maris  rubri.  The 
first  three  books  supplement  one  another  and  form  within  the  larger 
work  a  kind  of  minor  cycle,  the  subject-matter  of  which  is  original 
sin  or  the  loss  of  Paradise.  The  first  book  depicts  what  took  place 
before  the  Fall,  the  third  book  relates  its  fatal  consequences,  while 
the  catastrophe  itself  is  the  subject  of  the  second;  it  is  this  second 
book  which  exhibits  Avitus  at  his  best  as  a  dramatic  writer.  In 
the  fourth  and  fifth  books  the  deluge  and  the  passage  of  the  Red 
Sea  are  described  as  figures  symbolical  of  baptism.  In  the  first 
three  books  the  high  poetic  genius  of  Avitus  finds  full  play;  they 
are  characterized  by  unity  of  thought  and  arrangement  and  by  com- 
plete mastery  over  the  entire  scriptural  material.  His  poetical  gift 
appears  to  less  advantage  in  his  panegyric  De  virginilate  or:  De 
consolatoria  castitatis  laude.  This  poem  of  six  hundred  and  sixty- 
six  hexameters  was  addressed  to  his  sister  Fuscina,  a  virgin  dedi- 
cated to  the  service  of  God  from  her  earliest  youth,  but  whose  soul 
suffered  from  many  grievous  temptations.  Avitus  shows  at  all  times 
an  intimate  knowledge  of  Vergil  and  Sidonius  (see  no.  2).  His 
versification  exhibits  few  errors  in  prosody  or  metre,  and  the  dic- 
tion is  comparatively  pure  and  correct.  His  prose  works,  however, 
abound  in  barbarisms ;  it  is  well-known  that  contemporary  Latin  prose 
was  everywhere  in  a  more  advanced  condition  of  decay  than  Latin 
poetry.  Of  these  works  there  still  remain :  Contra  Eutychianam  hae- 
resim  libri  ii,  written  in  512  or  513,  and:  Dialogi  cum  Gundobado 
rege  vel"  librorum  contra  Arianos  reliquiae.  We  possess  also  about 
one  hundred  letters  of  Avitus,  written  between  495  and  518,  very 
valuable  for  the  ecclesiastical  and  political  history  of  the  time.  His 
homilies  were  once  extant  in  a  collection,  but  apart  from  some  frag- 
ments and  excerpts  only  two:  Homilia  in  rogationibus,  and:  Sermo 
die  prima  rogationum,  have  been  preserved. 

Theeditio  princeps  of  Avitus  is  that  by  J.  Sirmond,  S.  J.,  Paris,  1643; 
until  lately  all  editions  followed  this  text,  even  Mignc,  PL.,  lix.  The  first 
to  undertake  and  complete  a  new  edition  based  on  a  thorough  examination 
of  the  manuscripts  was  R.  Peiper,  Alcimi  Ecdicii  Aviti  Viennensis  episc. 
opera  quae  supersunt,  Berlin,  1883  (Monum.  Germ.  hist.  Auct.  antiquiss., 
vi.  2).  _  The  htest  editor  of  Avitus  is  U.  Chevalier,  CEuvres  completes  de 
St.  Avite,  eveque  de  Vienne,  Lyons,  1890.  The  appendix  added  by  Peiper 
to  the  prose  writings  of  Avitus  contains  among  other  things  an  ancient 
♦  <£"  nllU  (PP^^—iSi)  and  a  metrical  Epitaphium  S.  Aviti  (pp.  185 
°,18^  Mt**>  EL.,  lix.  197-198).  There  is  in  Peiper }  pp.  161-164, 
and  Mtgni r,  PL.,  lix.  387—392,  a  narrative  of  a  religious  colloquy  between 
orthodox  bishops  and  Arians  held  at  Lyons  in  499  before  King  Gundobad, 

1  Ep.  51,  ed.  Peiper. 


§    112.      OTHER    GALLIC   WRITERS.  6l  I 

in  which  Avitus,  as  the  Catholic  spokesman,  won  a  splendid  victory; 
Havet  (§  3,  2)  showed  (1885)  that  this  piece  was  a  forgery  of  Vignier, 
and  that  he  also  forged  the  letter  of  Pope  Symmachus  to  Avitus  (Oct.  13., 
501 :  Ep.  3^  in  the  Peiper  edition ;  Migne,  PL.,  lxii.  51—52).  Cf.  F.  Desloge, 
in  Universite  catholique,  new  series  (1890),  iv.  67—80.  V.  Cucheval,  De 
S.  Aviti  Viennae  episc.  operibus  commentarium,  Paris,  1863.  C.  Binding, 
Das  Burgundisch-Romanische  Königreich  (443—532  A.  D.),  Leipzig,  1868, 
i.  168 — 179  290—297.  A.  Charaux,  St.  Avite,  eveque  de  Yierme  en  Dau- 
phine,  sa  vie,  ses  ceuvres,  Paris,  1876.  H.  Denkinger ,  Alcimus  Ecdicius 
Avitus,  archeveque  de  Vienne,  460—526,  et  la  destruction  de  l'Arianisme 
en  Gaule  (These),  Geneva,  1890.  —  On  the  De  spiritalis  historiae  gestis 
see  S.  Gamber,  Le  livre  de  la  Genese  dans  la  poesie  latine  au  Ve  siecle, 
Paris,  1899.  G.  Losgar ,  Studien  zu  Alcimus  Ecdicius  Avitus'  «Gedicht» 
De  spiritalis  historiae  gestis,  Neuburg,  1903.  F.  Vernet,  St.  Avite,  in  Diet, 
de  la  Theologie,  Paris,   1903,  i.  2639  —  2444. 

6.  ST.  CESARIUS  OF  ARLES.  —  Caesarius,  bishop  of  Aries  (503 — 543), 
is  a  type  of  those  active,  self-sacrificing  prelates  of  Southern  Gaul 
who,  during  the  dissolution  of  the  imperial  power  in  the  West,  saved 
Christian  civilization  from  total  ruin,  by  grafting  it  upon  the  new 
political  life  of  the  barbarian  conquerors.  His  episcopal  city  of  Aries, 
where  he  lived  and  labored  for  forty  years,  was  admirably  adapted 
for  such  a  mission,  being  the  political  meeting  place  of  Ostrogoths 
and  Visigoths,  Franks  and  Burgundians.  It  was  here  in  stirring  times, 
alive  with  important  social  and  religious  problems,  that  Caesarius 
labored  as  a  shepherd  of  souls,  reformer  of  ecclesiastical  discipline, 
and  popular  preacher  of  practical  Christianity;  he  is  perhaps  the 
greatest  popular  preacher  of  the  ancient  Latin  Church.  In  all  these 
departments  his  influence  was  both  beneficent  and  durable.  The 
writings  of  Caesarius  consist  mostly  of  sermons.  One  of  his  first  bio- 
graphers tells  us  that  he  wrote  on  many  and  varied  subjects,  and 
sent  his  sermons  to  France,  Gaul,  Italy  and  Spain,  that  they  might 
be  serviceable  to  the  clergy  and  the  people  of  these  countries 1.  No 
critical  collection  of  these  sermons  has  reached  us,  and  it  is  therefore 
a  very  difficult  task  to  separate  the  genuine  work  of  Caesarius  from  the 
spurious  pieces  (cf.  §  III,  2).  The  genuine  sermons  are  distinguished 
for  simplicity,  clearness,  and  the  relative  purity  of  their  diction.  Most 
of  them  were  written  for  the  average  Christian,  and  are  remarkable 
for  the  numerous  similes  drawn  from  nature  and  the  common  daily 
life  of  his  time.  A  more  select  group  of  these  discourses  was  meant 
for  monks.  He  also  composed  two  monastic  rules  Ad  virgines  and 
Admonachos;  the  former,  which  is  also  the  longer  of  the  two,  was 
revised  by  him  in  a  later  recapitulatio.  He  left  also  some  letters, 
and  a  last  will  and  testament  under  the  form  of  a  letter  to  his  suc- 
cessor. Unless  his  work  De  gratia  et  libero  arbitrio  be  identical 
with   the   decrees   of  the   Second    Council   of  Orange   (529),    it   has 

1  Vita  S.  Caesarii,  i.   5,  42. 

39* 


(5I2  THIRD    PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 

perished.    Csesarius  presided  over  this  famous  synod  which  gave  the 
death-blow  to  Semipelagianism. 

There  exists  as  yet  no  complete  edition  of  the  works  of  St.  C?esarius : 
such  an  edition,  however,  is  being  prepared  by  G.  Morin,  O.  S.  B.  For 
former  editions  of  his  sermons  see  Fes  skr- Jungmann ,  Instit.  Patrol.,  ii  2, 
438 — 447.  Most  of  his  printed  sermons  are  found  among  the  Sermones 
supposititii  S.  Augustini,  in  the  fifth  volume  of  the  Benedictine  edition  of 
St.  Augustine  (cf.  §  94,  10),  reprinted  in  Migne,¥L.,  xxxix.  1735  ff-  Other 
sermons  of  St.  Csesarius  are  in  Migne,  PL.,  lxvii.  1041 — 1094  1121  — 1125. 
Some  new  sermons  were  edited  by  C.  P.  Caspari,  Kirchenhistor.  Anekdota, 
Christiania,  1883,  213  f.  Briefe,  Abhandlungen  und  Predigten  etc.,  ib., 
1890,  pp.  200  f.  Morin  also  published  others,  in  Revue  Benedictine  (1896), 
.xiii.  97— in  193—214;  (1899),  xvi.  241— 260  289—305  337—344-  A 
number  of  sermons  were  translated  into  German  by  C.  Fr.  Arnold ',  in 
Leonhardi-v .  Langsdorff ,  Die  Predigt  der  Kirche,  Leipzig,  1896.  In  ad- 
dition to  the  sermons  the  reader  will  find  in  Migne,  PL.,  lxvii,  the  afore- 
said Vita  S.  Caesarii  (1001  — 1042),  Regula  ad  monachos  (1099 — 1104), 
Regula  ad  virgines  (1105 — 1121),  Epistolae  iii  (11 25 — 1138),  Testamentum 
(1139 — 1 142).  The  Epistola  de  humilitate  ad  monachos  was  edited  by 
C.  Fr.  Arnold,  Cäsarius  von  Arelate,  Leipzig,  1894,  pp.  468 — 490,  and 
the  Testamentum  by  Morin,  in  Rev.  Bened.  (1899),  xvi.  97 — 112.  For  a 
hitherto  unknown  Admonitio  S.  Caesarii  to  the  clergy  concerning  the 
preaching  of  the  Word  of  God  cf.  A.  Malnory,  St.  Cesaire,  eveque  d'Arles, 
Paris,  1894,  pp.  294 — 307.  G.  Morin  and  Baltus  published,  in  Rev.  Bened. 
(1869),  xiii.  433 — 443  and  486,  a  little  treatise  hitherto  unknown,  con- 
cerning divine  grace.  In  the  Melanges  de  litter,  et  d'hist.  relig.  dedicated 
to  Mgr.  Cabrieres,  Paris,  1899,  *•  io9 — 124>  Morin  claims  for  St.  Csesa- 
rius  the  authorship  of  a  De  mysterio  sanctae  Trinitatis  attributed  to 
St.  Augustine  and  to  Faustus  of  Reji;  he  also  edited  it  partially  (ib.).  — 
For  the  writings  of  Csesarius  in  general  cf.  U.  Villevieille ,  Histoire  de 
St.  Cesaire,  eveque  d'Arles,  Aix  in  Provence  (1884).  B.  F.  Geliert, 
Cäsarius  von  Arelate  (2  progrs.),  Leipzig,  1892— 1893.  Arnold,  1.  a; 
Malnory ,  1.  c.  —  Julianus  Pomerius ,  a  priest  and  rhetorician  of  Aries, 
and  master  of  Caesarius,  wrote  several  works  that  have  perished  (Gennad., 
De  viris  ill.,  c.  98;  hid.  Hisp.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  25);  his  excellent  pastoral 
instruction  for  priests,  quite  filled  with  the  spirit  of  St.  Augustine,  has 
reached  us;  it  is  generally  known  as  a  De  vita  contemplativa  {Migne, 
PL.,  lix.  415—520),  though  only  the  first  book  treats  of  that  subject; 
the  second  is  devoted  to  the  active  life,  and  the  third  to  the  virtues  and 
the  vices.'  Cf.  Histoire  litteraire  de  la  France,  Paris,  1735,  ii.  665  to 
675,  and  Arnold,  Cäsarius  von  Arelate,  Leipzig,  1894,  pp.  80—84  124  to 
129.  —  Under  the  name  of  St.  Eleutherus  (Eleutherius),  bishop  of  Tournay 
(486—531),  some  Sermones  have  reached  us  [Migne,  PL.,  lxv.  82—102) 
that  are  genuine  in  part  only;  cf.  Streber,  in  Wetzer  und  Weite,  Kirchen- 
lexikon, iv.  361.  —  St.  Remigius  (Remi),  the  famous  apostle  of  the  Franks, 
bishop  of  Reims  (459— 533),  left  four  letters,  a  testament  and  a  metrical 
inscription  for  a  chalice  [Migne,  PL.,  lxv.  963-975).  The  letters  were 
edited  anew  by  W.  Gundlach,  in  Monum.  Germ  hist.  Epist.  (1892),  iii. 
iII27^  o  ^n  NeuesArchiv  der  Gesellsch.  für  ältere  deutsche  Geschichts- 
kunde (1895),  xx.  538  ff.,  Br.  Krusch  pronounces  the  «Testamentum»  a 
orgery  of  Hinkmar  of  Reims.  Remigius  wrote  a  collection  of  homilies 
(declamationum  volumina  Apoll.  Sidon.  Ep.  ix.  7)  that  have  perished.  - 
Aurehanus,  bishop  of  Aries  (546-551  or  553),  left  a  regula  ad  monachos 
and  a  Regula  ad  virgines,    in  which  he  re-arranged   and    enlarged  the  si- 


§    113-      IRISH,    SPANISH,    AND    AFRICAN   WRITERS.  6l$ 

milar  works  of  St.  Caesarius ;  he  wrote  also  an  Epistola  ad  Theodebertum 
regem  (Migne,  PL.,  lxviii.  385—408,  and  in  Gundlach,  1.  c.,  pp.  124 — 126). 
P.  Lejay,  Ce'saire  d'Arles,  in  Diet,  de  la  Theologie,  Paris,  1905,  2168 — 2186. 

§  113.    Irish,  Spanish,  and  African  writers. 

I.  ST.  PATRICK.  —  In  spite  of  much  scientific  investigation,  the 
details  of  the  life  of  the  Apostle  of  Ireland  are  still  shrouded  in 
obscurity.  Patricius,  or  Succat  (his  original  name),  is  said  to  have 
been  born  in  373.  His  birth-place,  according  to  some,  was  Kilpatrick 
near  Dumbarton  in  south-western  Scotland;  others  maintain  that  he 
was  born  at  Boulogne-sur-Mer  in  the  North  of  France.  He  was  com- 
missioned by  Pope  Celestine  I.  to  go  as  an  apostle  to  the  Irish,  and 
received  from  him  the  name  of  Patricius.  He  is  said  to  have  died  in 
493,  at  the  advanced  age  of  one  hundred  and  twenty  years.  Two 
of  the  works  current  under  his  name  are  usually  recognized  as 
genuine,  a  Confessio,  in  the  form  of  an  open  letter  tö  the  Irish,  and 
an  Epistola  ad  Coroticum  or:  ad  Christianos  Corotici  tyranni  sub- 
ditos.  The  Confessio  does  not  contain  a  statement  of  his  faith  or 
his  teachings,  but  rather  an  account  of  his  life  or  missionary  labors. 
Coroticus  was  an  Irish  prince  who  had  attacked  a  number  of  newly- 
converted  Irish,  slain  some  and  carried  others  into  captivity.  The 
genuineness  of  both  works  has  lately  been  again  denied.  There  is 
much  less  evidence  for  the  genuineness  of  other  writings  attributed 
to  Patrick. 

W.  B.  Morris,  The  life  of  St.  Patrick,  Dublin,  1878.  Archbishop  Healy, 
Ireland's  ancient  schools  and  scholars,  Dublin,  1890,  pp.  43 — 89.  J.  Sander- 
son, The  Story  of  St.  Patrick,  London,  1902.  All  earlier  editions  of  the 
writings  of  St.  Patrick  are  described  in  Schoenemann,  Bibl.  hist.-lit.  Patr.  lat, 
ii.  849  ff.  The  reader  will  find  in  Migne,  PL.,  liii,  not  only  the  Confessio 
(801  —  814)  and  the  Epistola  ad  Coroticum  (813 — 818),  but  the  following 
pseudo-Patrician  writings:  Synodus  S.  Patricii  (817 — 822),  Canones  alii 
S.  Patricio  adscripti  (823 — 824),  Synodus  episcoporum  Patricii,  Auxilii, 
Issernini  (823 — 826),  Canones  alii  S.  Patricio  attributi  (827 — 828),  Proverbia 
aliqua  S.  Patricii  (827 — 828),  Charta  S.  Patricii  (827 — 830),  S.  Patricii  episc. 
de  tribus  habitaculis  liber  (831  —  838),  Hymnus  alphabeticus  in  laudem  S.  Pa- 
tricii turn  viventis  Secundino  episc.  adscriptus  (837 — 840).  Whitley  Stokes 
(The  tripartite  life  of  Patrick,  London,  1887,  ii.  269—489)  edited  the  follow- 
ing: Documents  from  the  Book  of  Armagh,  The  Confession  of  St.  Patrick, 
St.  Patrick's  Letter  to  the  Christian  Subjects  of  Coroticus,  Preface  to  the 
Faed  Fiada,  Secundinus'  Hymn,  Preface  to  the  foregoing  Hymn,  Fiacc's 
Hymn,  Ninnine's  Prayer,  Homily  on  St.  Patrick.  George  T.  Stokes  and  Ch. 
H.  H.  Wright,  The  writings  of  St.  Patrick,  the  apostle  of  Ireland,  with 
notes,  critical  and  historical,  London,  1887.  J.  v.  Pflugk-Harttung ,  Die 
Schriften  St.  Patricks,  in  Neue  Heidelberger  Jahrbücher  (1893),  iii.  71 
to  87,  denies  against  Whitley  Stokes  the  genuineness  of  the  Confessio  and 
the  Epistola  ad  Coroticum.  The  bishop  Secundinus  was  a  nephew  of 
St.  Patrick.  For  the  Hymnus  abecedarius  on  St.  Patrick  cf.  Manitius, 
Gesch.  der  christl.-lat.  Poesie,  Stuttgart,  1891,  pp.  238—240.  S.  Malone, 
Chapters    towards   a    life    of  St.  Patrick,  Dublin,   1892.     J.  B.  Bury,  The 


(5 1 4  THIRD   PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 

Life  of  St.  Patrick  and  his  place  in  History,  London,  1905 ;  cf.  Catholic 
University  Bulletin,  Washington,  1906,  pp.  246—255.  On  St.  Patrick's 
Purgatory,  see  H.  Delehaye,  Le  Pelerinage  de  Laurent  de  Pasytho  au  Pur- 
gatoire  de  St.  Patrice,  in  Analecta  Bollandiana  (1908),  xxxii  1,  35 — 60. 

2.  HYDATIUS.  —  The  Spaniard  Hydatius  (Idacius),  born  at  Lemica 
in  Gallecia  (Jinzo  de  Lima  in  Portugal),  consecrated  bishop  in  427, 
probably  of  Aquae  Flaviae  (Chaves),  continued  the  Chronicle  of 
St.  Jerome  (§  93,  6)  to  the  year  468.  From  the  year  427  he  is  a 
contemporary  witness  of  the  events  he  narrates;  hence  the  value  of 
his  work  for  Spanish  history  of  the  fifth  century,  particularly  that 
of  his  native  province  of  Gallecia. 

The  Chronicle  of  Hydatius  was  first  edited  by  Ludovicus  de  S.  Laurentio 
under  the  pseudonym  of  Paulus  Profitius,  Rome,  161 5.  It  is  twice  printed 
in  Migne,  PL.,  li.  873 — 890,  from  the  edition  of  Sirmond  (Paris,  16 19)  or 
rather  from  the  reprint  of  that  edition  in  Gallandi ,  Max.  Bibl.  vet.  Patr. 
x.  323  fr.;  and  again  PL.,  lxxiv.  701 — 750,  from  the  edition  of  J.  M. 
Garzon  and  F.  X.  De  Ram,  Brussels,  1845.  I*  was  recently  edited  anew 
by  Th.  Mommsen,  Chronica  minora  saec.  iv  v  vi  vii,  vol.  ii  (Monum.  Germ, 
hist.  Auct.  antiquiss.,  Berlin,  1894,  xi.  13 — 36).  In  the  same  Chron.  min. 
vol.  i  (Monum.  Germ.  hist.  Auct.  antiquiss.,  1892,  ix.  205 — 247),  Mommsen 
published  the  Fasti  Consulares  for  the  years  245 — 468  {Migne,  PL.,  li.  891 
to  914)  appended  to  the  Chronicle  in  the  only  extant  manuscript,  which 
Mommsen  entitled:  Consularia  Constantinopolitana  ad  a.  395  cum  addita- 
mento  Hydatii  ad  a.  468  (accedunt  consularia  Chronici  Paschalis).  The 
provenance  of  these  consular  lists  is  discussed,  in  a  sense  hostile  to 
Mommsen,  by  C.  Frick,  Die  Fasti  Idatiani  und  das  Chronicon  Paschal e,  in 
Byzantinische  Zeitschrift  (1892),  i.  282 — 291.  For  the  person  of  Hydatius 
cf.  P.  B.  Gams,  Die  Kirchengeschichte  von  Spanien,  Ratisbon,  1864,  ii  1, 
465  —  471.  J.  Chr.  F.  Baehr,  Die  christl.  Dichter  und  Geschichtschreiber 
Roms,  2.  ed.,  Karlsruhe,  1872,  pp.  208 — 212. 

3.  VICTOR  OF  VITA.  —  Victor,  bishop  of  Vita  in  the  African  pro- 
vince of  Byzacena,  composed  in  486  a  history  of  the  persecutions 
inflicted  by  the  Arian  Vandals  on  the  Catholics  of  Africa.  It  is 
known  as:  Historia  persecutionis  Africanae  provinciae  temporibus 
Geiserici  et  Hunirici  regum  Wandalorum.  He  owed  to  others  the 
material  of  the  first  book  that  covers  the  reign  of  Geiseric  (427  to 
477).  The  other  two  books  have  a  much  greater  historical  value, 
since  in  them  the  author  relates  the  events  of  his  own  time,  the 
reign  of  Huneric  (477—484).  He  speaks  often  as  an  eye-witness, 
and  furnishes  important  documents :  we  owe  to  him  the  text  of  an 
exhaustive  profession  of  faith  (ii.  56—101)  made  by  the  Catholic 
bishops  at  the  conference  with  the  Arian  bishops  held  in  Carthage, 
February  1.,  484,  also  the  edict  of  persecution  issued  by  Huneric 
(iii.  3—14)  on  February  24.,  484.  The  work  was  formerly  edited 
in  five  books;  they  have  been  reduced  to  three  in  modern  editions. 
The  narrative  of  Victor,  set  down  amid  the  still  vivid  impressions  of 
the  frightful  cruelties  of  the  Vandals,  is  very  boldly  colored,  and  the 
style  is  quite  unpolished.    To    the   manuscripts   of  Victor's   work   is 


§    113-      IRISH,    SPANISH,    AND    AFRICAN   WRITERS.  6l  5 

appended  a :  Passio  beatissimorum  martyrum  (seven  monks)  qui  apud 
Carthaginem  passi  sunt  sub  impio  rege  Hunirico  (die  vi.  Non.  Julias 
483) ;  from  the  manuscripts  it  has  passed  into  the  editions  of  Victor, 
though  it  is  not  by  him,  but  by  some  contemporary  African.  There 
is  also  published  in  the  editions  of  Victor  a:  Notitia  provinciarum 
et  civitatum  Africae,  i.  e.  a  list  according  to  their  respective  pro 
vinces,  of  the  Catholic  bishops  whom  king  Huneric  convoked  at 
Carthage  for  the  conference  of  February   I.,  484. 

The  latest  and  best  editions  of  the  works  of  Victor  are  those  of 
C.  Halm,  Berlin,  1879  (Monum.  Germ.  hist.  Auct.  antiquiss.  iii.  1),  and 
M.  Peischenig,  Vienna,  1881  (Corpus  script,  eccles.  lat.  vii).  For  a  reprint 
of  earlier  editions  see  Migne  (PL.,  lviii.  179 — 276)  and  Hurler  (Ss.  Patr. 
opusc.  sei.  xxii).  German  versions  were  made  by  M.  Zink,  Bamberg,  1883 
(Progr.),  and  A.  Mally,  Vienna,  1884.  Cf.  W.  Pötzsch ,  Viktor  von  Vita 
und  die  Kirchen  Verfolgung  im  Wandalenreiche  (Progr.),  Döbeln,  1887. 
F.  Ferrere,  De  Victoris  Vitensis  libro  qui  inscribitur  historia  persecutionis 
Africanae  provinciae  (These),  Paris,  1898.  A.  Schönfelder,  De  Victore  Vitensi 
episc.  (Diss,  inaug.),  Breslau,  1889.  F.  Ferrere,  Langue  et  style  de  Victor 
de  Vita,  in  Revue  de  Philologie  (1901),  xxv.  110 — 123  320—336.  —  The 
above-mentioned  profession  of  faith  of  the  Catholic  bishops  of  Africa  was 
drawn  up  by  Eugenius,  bishop  of  Carthage  (480 — 505),  to  whom  we  also 
owe  an :  Epistola  ad  cives  suos  pro  custodienda  fide  catholica  (Migne,  PL., 
lviii.  769 — 771).  This  heroic  confessor  of  the  faith  wrote  other  works 
(Gennad.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  97)  that  have  perished.  —  Cerealis,  bishop  of 
Castellum  in  Mauretania  Caesariensis ,  called  Cerealis  Castello-Ripensis  in 
the  Notitia,  left  a  short  treatise :  Contra  Maximinum  Arianum  (Migne,  PL., 
lviii.  757 — 768).  Cf.  Rausch,  in  Wetzer  und  Weite,  Kirchenlexikon,  iii.  14. 
Antoninus  Honoratus,  bishop  of  Constantina  (Cirta)  in  Numidia,  wrote  a 
beautiful  letter  of  consolation  and  encouragement  to  a  certain  Arcadius, 
whom  Geiseric  had  exiled  for  his  attachment  to  his  faith  (Migne,  PL.,  1. 
567 — 570);  cf.  Bardenhewer ,  in  Kirchenlexikon,  vi.  227  f.  —  We  regret 
the  loss  of  several  anti-Arian  works  written  by  Catholic  bishops  in  the 
time  of  Geiseric  and  Huneric,  e.  g.  by  Asclepius,  bishop  of  a  little 
place  near  Vaga  in  Numidia  (Gennad.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  73;  G.  Mercati,  in 
Rivista  bibliog.  ital.  [1897],  ii.  58 — 59);  Victor  of  Cartenna  in  Mauretania 
Caesariensis  (Gennad.,  1.  c. ,  c.  77),  and  Voconius,  bishop  of  Castellum 
(Gennad.,  1.  c,  c.  78).  Two  works  of  Victor  of  Cartenna,  mentioned  by 
Gennadius:  De  poenitentia  publica  and  Ad  Basilium  quendam  super  mor- 
tem filii,  are  perhaps  still  extant,  the  first  in  the  pseudo-Ambrosian  De 
poenitentia  (Migne,  PL.,  xvii.  971 — 1004),  and  the  other  in  the  pseudo- 
Basilian  De  consolatione  in  adversis  (Migne,  PG.,  xxxi.  1687  — 1704).  Some 
sermons,  possibly  the  work  of  Voconius,  are  discussed  by  G.  Morin,  in 
Revue  Benedictine  (1893),  x.  529. 

4.  VIGILIUS  OF  TAPSUS.  —  Among  those  who  took  part  in  the 
above-mentioned  conference  at  Carthage  between  Catholics  and  Arians 
(see  no.  3)  was  Vigilius,  bishop  of  Tapsus  in  the  province  of  Byzacena. 
At  this  conference  there  was  no  genuine  discussion.  Later  on  most 
of  the  Catholic  bishops  were  exiled.  We  have  no  certain  knowledge 
concerning  the  fate  of  the  bishop  of  Tapsus.  It  has  been  commonly 
maintained   that   he   took   refuge   at  Constantinople,    but   this   seems 


6X6  THIRD   PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 

now  untenable.  The  researches  of  Ficker  (1897)  have  made  clear 
a  number  of  facts  concerning  the  literary  labors  of  Vigilius.  He  is 
without  doubt  the  author  of  the  dialogue :  Contra  Arianos,  Sabellianos 
et  Photinianos  (Athanasio,  Ario,  Sabellio,  Photino  et  Probo  iudice  inter- 
locutoribus),  and  of  the  five  books:  Contra  Eutychetem,  composed 
as  an  antidote  to  Monophysitism  in  view  of  the  needs  of  readers  in 
the  Eastern  empire.  In  this  second  work  he  quotes  himself  (v.  2) 
as  the  author  of  the  «dialogue»,  while  in  the  latter  he  mentions  two 
other  works  written  by  him :  a  book  against  the  Arian  deacon  Mari- 
badus  (ii.  45)  and  one  against  the  Arian  bishop  Palladius  (ii.  50). 
So  far  it  has  been  impossible  to  identify  these  two  works ;  they  seem 
to  have  perished.  Chifflet  published  (1664),  and  under  the  name 
of  our  Vigilius:  Contra  Marivadum  Arianum  and  Contra  Palladium 
Arianum,  but  the  latter  is  known  to  be  a  spurious  work,  and  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  such  is  also  the  character  of  the  former.  As 
to  the  other  four  works  that  Chifflet  attributes  to  Vigilius :  a  dialogue 
Contra  Arianos  (a  rudely  executed  excerpt  of  the  genuine  «dialogue»), 
twelve  books  De  trinitate,  a  work  Contra  Felicianum  Arianum,  the 
short  and  insignificant  Solutiones  obiectionum  Arianorum  and  a  Col- 
latio  cum  Pascentio  Ariano:  they  are  ascribed  to  our  author  either 
erroneously  or  with  insufficient  arguments. 

The  last  complete  edition  of  the  works  of  Vigilius  (with  those  of  Victor 
of  Vita)  is  owing  to  P.  Fr.  Chifflet,  S.  J.,  Dijon,  1664  (Migne,  PL.,  lxii, 
Paris,  1848  1863).  The  Contra  Marivadum  Arianum  is  mentioned  in 
§  89,  3,  apropos  of  the  anti-Priscillianist  Itacius.  The  first  book  of  the 
Contra  Palladium  Arianum  (Ib.,  lxii.  433 — 463)  contains  only  the  acts  of 
the  Synod  of  Aquileia  (381);  cf.  Hefele,  Konziliengeschichte,  2.  ed.,  ii.  35, 
adn.  3;  the  second  book  is  identical  with  the  De  fide  orthodoxa  contra 
Arianos  that  was  apparently  composed  by  Gregory  of  Eliberis  (§  87,  4). 
The  twelve  books  De  Trinitate  (Ib.,  lxii.  237 — 334)  bear  in  the  manuscript 
the  name  of  St.  Athanasius;  Montfaucon  was  inclined,  perhaps  rightly,  to 
see  in  the  twelfth  book  a  genuine  work  of  St.  Athanasius  (§  63,  3  10; 
§  87,  4).  The  work  Contra  Felicianum  Arianum  has  come  down  under 
the  name  of  St.  Augustine  (Ib.,  xlii.  1 157— 1 172),  as  has  also  the  Collatio 
cum  Pascentio  Ariano  (lb.,  xxxiii.  1 156— 1 162).  Cf.  G.  Picker,  Studien 
zu  Vigilius  von  Tapsus,  Leipzig,   1897. 

5.  ST.  FULGENTIUS  OF  RUSPE.  —  The  African  writer  Fulgentius 
was  probably  the  best  theologian  of  his  time.  He  was  an  able  adversary 
of  Arianism,  while  the  Augustinian  doctrine  of  grace  found  in  him 
a  skilful  exponent.  He  was  born  at  Telepte  in  Byzacena  in  468 
and  died  in  533  as  bishop  of  Ruspe  in  the  same  province.  Our 
knowledge  of  his  life  is  drawn  from  an  excellent  historical  source, 
the  Vita  S.  Fulgentii,  composed  in  533—534,  and  according  to 
tradition  by  Fulgentius  Ferrandus,  a  disciple  of  the  Saint.  Our 
Fulgentius  belonged  to  a  distinguished  family  and  received  a  very 
careful  education.  The  commentary  of  St.  Augustine  on  the  thirty- 
sixth  Psalm  (Vulgate)  moved  the  pious  youth  to  embrace  the  monas- 


§    113-      IRISH,    SPANISH,    AND    AFRICAN   WRITERS.  6lJ 

tic  life.  After  many  sufferings  and  persecutions  on  the  part  of  the 
Arians,  he  quitted  Africa  and  lived  for  a  while  in  Sicily  and  at 
Rome.  He  was  then  for  many  years  the  abbot  of  a  monastery;  in 
507  or  508  he  was  reluctantly  made  bishop  of  the  little  maritime 
town  of  Ruspe.  Shortly  afterward,  together  with  more  than  sixty 
other  Catholic  bishops  of  Byzacena,  he  was  exiled  to  Sardinia  by 
king  Thrasamund  (496 — 523).  Somewhat  later,  about  515,  the  king 
felt  the  need  of  his  counsel  in  the  course  of  some  doctrinal  discus- 
sions, and  recalled  to  Carthage  the  famous  theologian,  whence  he 
was  again  banished  to  Sardinia  about  519  by  Arian  intrigues.  The 
accession  of  the  lenient  Hilderic  in  523  made  it  possible  for  him 
and  the  other  exiled  African  bishops  to  return  to  their  native  land. 
After  ten  more  years  of  pastoral  labors  Fulgentius  died  in  533.  — ■ 
Most  of  his  writings  are  either  anti- Arian  in  scope  or  treat  of  the 
mystery  of  the  Incarnation.  His  treatise  :  Contra  Arianos,  was  written 
to  answer  the  ten  questions  proposed  to  him  by  Thrasamund  about 
515.  Another  work:  Ad  Thrasamundum  regem  Vandalorum,  was 
composed  in  reply  to  new  objections  of  the  king.  The  author  of 
the  Vita  S.  Fulgentii  tells  us  (cc.  23,  47;  24,  48)  that  this  work 
was  followed  by  another  (opus) :  Adversus  Pintam ,  and  by  a  short 
treatise  (commonitorium  parvissimum) :  De  Spiritu  Sancto.  The  latter 
work  is  now  represented  by  two  fragments,  while  the  former  work 
has  perished.  The  treatise:  Pro  fide  Catholica  adversus  Pintam  epi- 
scopum  Africanum,  printed  in  the  editions  of  Fulgentius,  is  spurious. 
The  following  works  are  apparently  of  a  later  date :  De  Trinitate 
ad  Felicem  notarium,  Contra  sermonem  Fastidiosi  Ariani  ad  Victorem, 
De  incarnatione  Filii  Dei  et  vilium  animalium  auctore  ad  Scarilam. 
We  possess  still  thirty-nine  precious  fragments  of  the  ten  books: 
Contra  Fabianum  Arianum.  —  Fulgentius  was  first  drawn  into  the 
discussion  of  questions  concerning  grace  by  the  Scythian  monks 
(§  102,  2).  In  519  or  520  they  submitted  their  doctrinal  opinions 
to  the  judgment  of  the  exiled  African  bishops  in  Sardinia,  who 
through  Fulgentius  opposed  the  formula:  «one  of  the  Trinity  suffered 
in  the  flesh»,  and  took  sides  with  the  monks  in  their  conflict  with 
Faustus  of  Reji1.  During  his  Sardinian  exile  Fulgentius  wrote:  De 
remissione  peccatorum  ad  Euthymium  libri  ii,  Ad  Monimum  libri  iii 
(i.  De  duplice  praedestinatione  Dei,  una  bonorum  ad  gloriam,  altera 
malorum  ad  poenam;  ii.  De  sacrificii  oblatione,  de  Spiritus  Sancti 
missione,  de  supererogatione  beati  Pauli;  iii.  De  vera  expositione 
illius  dicti  evangelici:  et  Verbum  erat  apud  Deum),  Contra  Faustum 
libri  vii.  The  latter  work2  has  perished.  After  his  return  from  exile 
(523)  Fulgentius  wrote  in  Africa:  De  veritate  praedestinationis  et 
gratiae  Dei  ad  Joannem  et  Venerium ;  he  composed  also  in  the  same 
year    the    Epistola    Synodica    of    the    African    bishops     concerning 

1  S.  Fulg.,  Ep.    17  de  incarnatione  et  gratia.  2  Vita  S.  Fulg., -c.   28,   54. 


6j8  THIRD   PERIOD.      THIRD   SECTION. 

grace1,  and  addressed  it  to  the  aforesaid  John  and  Venerius  (§  102,  2). 
The  genuine  works  of  Fulgentius  on  grace  and  predestination  (De 
praedestinatione  et  gratia)  are  so  true  an  echo  of  St.  Augustine's 
doctrine,  even  on  such  points  as  the  special  voluntas  salvifica  of  God 
and  the  fate  of  infants  deceased  without  baptism,  that  he  has  been 
rightly  called  «Augustinus  abbreviatus».  The  golden  booklet:  De 
fide  seu  de  regula  verae  fidei  ad  Petrum,  is  a  compendium  of  Catholic 
doctrine.     He  wrote  also  some  letters  and  sermons. 

His  works  were  first  edited  by  W.  Pirkheimer  and  J.  Cochläus,  Hagenau, 
1520.  The  best  and  most  complete  edition  is  that  of  L.  Mangeant,  Paris, 
1684;  Venice,  1742  [Migne,  PL.,  lxv,  Paris,  1847  1861).  The  De  fide  ad 
Petrum  is  reprinted  by  Hurter,  in  vol.  xvi  of  his  SS.  Patr.  opusc.  selecta ; 
eighteen  Epistolae  (1— 18)  are  ib.,  in  vols,  xlv— xlvi,  together  with  the 
Vita  Fulgentii.  The  latter  work  was  translated  into  German  by  A.  Mally, 
Vienna,  1885;  cf.  G.  Ficker ,  in  Zeitschr.  für  Kirchengesch.  (1901),  xxi. 
9—42.  In  the  Rhein.  Museum  (1899),  liv.  in — 134,  F.  Helm  maintains 
the  identity  of  our  Fulgentius  with  the  profane  writer  Fabius  Planciades 
Fulgentius;  cf.  Teuff el- Schwabe,  Gesch.  der  röm.  Lit.,  5.  ed.,  pp.  1238  ff.  For 
a  circumstantial  and  exhaustive  study  on  Fulgentius  see  Fessler- Jungmann, 
Instit.  Patrol.,  ii  2,  398 — 432  ,  and  F.  Wörter,  Zur  Dogmengeschichte  des 
Semipelagianismus  (III:  Die  Lehre  des  Fulgentius  von  Ruspe),  Münster, 
1900  (Kirchengeschichtl.  Studien,  v.  2).  —  Of  Fulgentius  Ferrandus,  a 
disciple  and  perhaps  a  relative  of  Fulgentius  of  Ruspe,  we  know  only  that 
he  was  the  companion  of  the  latter  during  his  exile  in  Sardinia  and  that 
in  523  he  became  a  deacon  of  the  Church  of  Carthage.  Facundus  of 
Hermiane,  who  was  composing  his  Pro  defensione  trium  capitulorum  in 
546,  speaks  in  that  work  (iv.  3)  of  Ferrandus  as  if  he  were  already  dead. 
Apart  from  the  Vita  Fulgentii,  Ferrandus  left  some  letters  and  a  Breviatio 
canonum.  The  latter  work  [Migne,  PL.,  lxvii.  949—962)  is  a  complete  rule 
of  ecclesiastical  life  compiled  from  Greek  and  African  canons ;  it  treats  of 
bishops  (cc.  i — 84),  of  priests  (cc.  85—103),  of  deacons  (cc.  104—120),  of 
other  ecclesiastics  (cc.  121 — 142),  of  councils  (cc.  143 — 144),  of  canonical 
offences,  and  among  other  things  of  procedure  against  heretics,  Jews  and 
pagans  (cc.  145—198),  of  baptism  (cc.  199—205),  of  Lent  (cc.  206—210), 
and  of  other  miscellaneous  points  (cc.  211 — 232).  On  its  literary  history 
cf.  Fr.  Maassen,  Geschichte  der  Quellen  und  der  Literatur  des  kanoni- 
schen Rechts,  Graz,  1870,  i.  799—802.  Seven  theological  letters  of  Fer- 
randus are  in  Migne  (1.  c,  lxvii.  887—950);  two  of  his  letters  to  Fulgen- 
tius are  among  the  works  of  the  latter  (Ib.,  lxv.  378—380  392—394). 
One  of  these  seven  letters,  addressed  to  Eugippius  (§  114,  4)  was  first 
edited  in  its  entirety  by  Mai  (Script,  vet.  nova  Coll.,  iii  2,  169—184);  the 
only  fragment  hitherto  known  was  in  Migne  (1.  c,  lxvii.  908—910),  who 
took  it  from  Gallandi,  Bibl.  vet.  Patr.,  xi.  355.  The  same  Codex  Casinas, 
saec.  xi,  from  which  Mai  obtained  his  material,  furnished  A.  Reifferscheid, 
Anecdota  Casinensia  (Supplement  to  the  Index  scholarum  in  universit.  litt. 
Vratislaviensi  per  hiemem  a.  187 1— 1872  habendarum)  pp.  5—7,  with  the 
text  of  five  other  hitherto  unedited  letters  of  Fulgentius,  short  personal  notes 
of  little  importance. 

6.  DRACONTIUS.  —  Toward  the  end  of  the  fifth  century  a  Chris- 
tian  poet   again   appeared  in  Africa,    Blossius  Aemilius   Dracontius. 
1  EP.  15. 


§    113.     IRISH,    SPANISH,    AND    AFRICAN   WRITERS.  619 

He  belonged  to  a  wealthy  family  of  the  landed  gentry,  and  received 
the  liberal  education  in  grammar  and  rhetoric  suited  to  his  rank  and 
the  legal  career  to  which  he  devoted  himself.  Both  he  and  his  family 
incurred  the  wrath  of  king  Gunthamund  (484 — 496)  whereby  the 
fortunes  of  the  family  were  ruined.  Dracontius  was  stripped  of  all 
his  wealth  and  cast  into  prison.  He  tells  us  himself,  in  the  Satis- 
f actio  (vv.  93 — 94;  cf.  vv.  105 — 106),  that  his  misfortunes  were  owing 
to  a  poem  in  which  he  had  sung  the  praises  of  a  foreign  master 
(probably  the  Roman  emperor)  instead  of  the  Vandal  lords  of  Africa. 
While  in  prison,  Dracontius  composed  his  Satisfactio,  an  elegy  in 
one  hundred  and  fifty-eight  distichs  or  three  hundred  and  sixteen 
hexameters,  in  praise  of  God's  love  and  goodness;  he  also  exhorts 
king  Gunthamund  to  imitate  the  forgiving  spirit  and  mercy  of  God, 
an  advice  that  was  unheeded.  This  poem  was  followed  by  a  longer 
one  entitled  Landes  Dei,  likewise  in  honor  of  the  divine  graciousness 
(pietas).  It  is  divided  into  three  books.  The  first  (seven  hundred 
and  fifty-four  verses)  glorifies  the  loving  kindness  of  God  in  the  Crea- 
tion ;  the  second  (eight  hundred  and  eight  verses  in  the  Arevalo, 
eight  hundred  and  thirteen  in  the  Gläser  edition)  treats  of  its  con- 
tinuance and  perfection  in  the  preservation  of  the  world  and  espe- 
cially in  the  mission  of  Jesus  Christ;  the  third  (six  hundred  and 
eighty-two  verses  in  the  Arevalo,  six  hundred  and  ninety-nine  in  the 
Gläser  edition)  invites  all  Christians  to  repay  the  divine  love  by  an 
invincible  confidence  in  God.  It  is  not  known  if  this  work  of  Dra- 
contius met  with  better  success  than  the  former.  The  remainder  of 
his  life  is  still  hidden  in  obscurity.  The  didactic  gravity  of  these 
poems  is  varied  by  their  strongly  subjective  and  lyrical  tone;  they 
exhibit  at  once  a  pleasing  originality  and  strong  personal  emotion. 
There  are  extant  also  some  miscellaneous  poems  of  a  profane  cha- 
racter, most  of  which  were  very  probably  written  at  an  earlier  period 
of  the  poet's  life. 

The  Satisfactio  of  Dracontius  underwent  a  substantial  revision  at  the 
hands  of  Eugenius  II. ,  bishop  of  Toledo ,  in  keeping  with  the  wishes^  of 
the  Visigothic  king  Chindaswinth  (642 — 649);  not  only  were  the  poetical 
form  and  the  theology  of  the  poem  affected  by  this  treatment,  but  pro- 
bably also  its  political  sentiments.  It  is  this  revision  that  was  usually 
printed  as  Dracontii  Elegia  [Migne,  PL.,  Ixxxvii.  383—388),  until  the  edition 
of  F.  Arevalo  (Rome,  1791,  pp.  367—402:  Ib.,  lx.  901—932)  made  known 
the  original  text.  For  a  new  collation  of  the  manuscripts  of  Arevalo 
cf.  F.  de  Duhn,  Dracontii  carmina  minora,  Leipzig,  1873,  pp.  80—90. 
The  Laudes  Dei  were  first  edited,  with  approximate  completeness,  by 
Arevalo,  1.  c,  pp.  117—366  (Ib.,  lx.  679—902).  The  last  two  books  of 
'this  poem  were  edited  anew  (Breslav,  1843  1847)  by  C.  E.  Gläser,  in  two 
short  programs  of  the  Royal  Friedrichs-Gymnasium.  For  the  text-criticism 
of  Dracontius  scholars  are  much  indebted  to  W.  Mayer,  Die  Berliner 
«Centones»  der  «Laudes  Dei»  des  Dracontius,  in  Sitzungsberichte  der  kgl. 
preuß.  Akad.  der  Wissensch.  zu  Berlin  (1890),    pp.  257—296.     Cf.  J.  B. 


520  THIRD   PERIOD.      THIRD   SECTION. 

Pitra  Analecta  sacra  et  classica,  Paris,  1888,  part  I,  pp.  176—180.  That 
part  of  the  Laudes  Dei  which  treats  of  the  creation  and  original  sin,  1.  e. 
the  first  book  from  verse  116  to  the  end  of  this  book,  was  soon  circulated 
separately,  under  the  title  Hexaemeron  creationis  mundi  [Isid.  Hisp.,  De 
viris  ill. ,  c.  24).  Bishop  Eugenius  also  edited  anew  this  section  of  the 
poem  and  entitled  it:  Dracontii  Hexaemeron;  as  such  it  went  through 
various  editions  (Ib.,  lxxxvii.  371—384  388).  For  the  profane  poems  of 
Dracontius,  particularly  the  Orestis  tragoedia,  attributed  to  him  with  seem- 
ingly good  reasons,  cf.  Teuffel-Schwabe ,  Gesch.  der  röm.  Lit.,  5.  ed., 
pp.  1220— 1224,  where  the  reader  will  also  find  the  most  recent  literature, 
and  in  particular  that  concerning  the  Orestis  tragoedia  of  Dracontius. 
J.  Gamber,  Le  livre  de  la  Genese  dans  la  poe'sie  latine  au  Ve  siecle,  Paris, 
1899.  H.  Malfait,  De  Dracontii  poetae  lingua  (These),  Paris,  1902.  —  The 
aforesaid  bishop  Eugenius  II.  of  Toledo  (646—657)  left  a  number  of  small 
poems  (Ib.,  lxxxvii.  359—368  389—400)  and  some  letters  (Ib.,  lxxxvii.  403 
to  418).  Cf.  Fr.  Vollmer,  in  Neues  Archiv  der  Gesellsch.  für  ältere  deutsche 
Geschichtskunde  (1901),  xxvi.  391 — 404. 

§  114.    Italian  writers. 

i.  popes,  especially  ST.  gelasius  I.  —  Among  the  Popes  of 
the  second  half  of  the  fifth  century,  Hilary  (461 — 468),  Simplicius 
(468—483),  Felix  III.  (483 — 492),  Gelasius  I.  (492—496),  Anastasius  II. 
(496—498),  it  is  Gelasius  who  has  left  us  by  far  the  greater  number 
of  important  letters  and  decrees.  Some  years  ago,  a  not  unimportant 
addition  was  made  to  their  number  by  the  discovery  of  ancient  papal 
letters,  known  as  the  British  Collection,  because  found  in  a  manu- 
script belonging  to  the  British  Museum.  The  most  famous  of  the 
official  documents  current  under  the  name  of  Gelasius  is  the :  De- 
cretum  de  recipiendis  et  non  recipiendis  libris,  a  series  of  decrees 
said  to  have  been  issued  by  him  at  a  Roman  Synod;  modern  re- 
searches have  shown  that  it  is  a  spurious  compilation.  In  its  tradi- 
tional form  this  Decretum  is  made  up  of  five  parts :  de  Spiritu  Sancto, 
de  canone  Scripturae  Sacrae,  de  sedibus  patriarchalibus,  de  synodis 
oecumenicis,  de  libris  recipiendis.  The  fifth  part  has  given  the  name 
to  the  whole  work,  probably  because  it  is  by  far  the  most  extensive 
of  the  five  works :  it  is  a  catalogue  of  libri  recipiendi  (works  of  the 
Fathers)  and  libri  apocryphi  qui  non  recipiuntur  (biblical  apocrypha 
and  some  patristic  writings).  The  ecclesiastical  interest  of  the  work 
is  very  great,  since  it  is  the  earliest  Index  librorum  prohibitorum. 
It  was  well-known  for  a  long  time  that  the  first  two  parts  belonged 
to  a  Roman  synod  held  under  Pope  Damasus,  very  probably  in  the 
year  382.  The  Gelasian  authorship  of  the  latter  part  has  provoked 
so  many  objections  that  it  seems  more  prudent  entirely  to  abandon 
the  defence  of  it,  than  to  maintain  any  hypothesis  of  interpolation  and 
text-corruption.  In  his  edition  of  the  letters  of  Gelasius  (1868),  Thiel, 
following  the  manuscript-tradition,  set  aside  six  of  the  longer  docu- 
ments among  the  Epistolae  et  decreta,  and  edited  them  as  a  special 
group  of  Gelasian  writings  under  the  title  Tractatus.    Most  of  them  re- 


.       §    114-      ITALIAN   WRITERS.  02 1 

present  the  sustained  but  hopeless  attempts  of  the  pope  to  put  an  end 
to  the  Acacian  Schism  at  Constantinople  (§  99,  4).  These  tractatus 
are  as  follows :  Gesta  de  nomine  Acacii  vel  breviculus  historiae  Eutychia- 
nistarum;  De  damnatione  nominum  Petri  et  Acacii;  De  duabus  naturis 
in  Christo  adversus  Eutychen  et  Nestorium;  Tomus  de  anathematis 
vinculo;  Dicta  adversus  Pelagianam  haeresim;  Adversus  Andromachum 
senatorem  ceterosque  Romanos,  qui  Lupercalia  secundum  morem  pri- 
stinum  colenda  constituebant.  Other  writings  of  Gelasius  have  perished. 
The  Sacramentarium  Gelasianum ,  or  collection  of  prayers  at  Mass 
(§  97,  2),  is  declared  by  Duchesne  (1889)  to  be  a  compilation  of 
Gregory  the  Great;  Probst  (1892)  maintains  the  authorship  of  Gela- 
sius. Even  in  the  latter  hypothesis,  additions  and  modifications  may 
be  admitted,  since  none  of  the  extant  manuscripts  is  prior  to  the 
seventh  or  eigth  century.  It  seems  quite  certain  that  there  existed 
in  the  Roman  Church  previous  to  Gregory  the  Great  an  official 
collection  of  such  prayers,  also  that  this  collection,  with  its  later 
accretions,  lies  embedded  in  the  Sacramentarium  Gelasianum.  On 
the  other  hand,  such  critics  as  Dom  Bäumer  think  that  the  time  has 
not  yet  come  when  a  positive  decision  can  be  reached  as  to  the 
authorship  and  proper  title  of  the  Gelasian  Sacramentary  in  its  pre- 
sent shape.  —  Pope  Symmachus  (498 — 514)  left  some  ten  genuine 
letters.  Many  more  letters  of  his  successor,  Pope  Hormisdas  (514 
to  523),  have  survived;  it  is  surmised  that  the  ancient  collectors  of 
papal  decretals  had  direct  access  to  the  archives  of  the  Roman  Church 
for  the  correspondence  of  Hormisdas. 

Epistolae  et  decreta  S.  Hilari  P.,  in  Migne,  PL.,  lviii.  11  ff. ;  S.  Sim- 
plicii  P.:  ib.,  lviii.  35  ff . ;  S.  Felicia  P.  III.:  ib.,  lviii.  893  ff.;  S.  Gelasii  P.  I.: 
ib.,  lix.  13fr.  (letters  of  Anastasius  II.  are  lacking);  S.  Symachi  P.:  ib., 
lxii.  49  ff. ;  S.  Hormisdae  P. :  ib.,  lxiii.  367  ff.  A  new  (unfinished)  edition 
of  the  early  papal  letters  was  begun  by  A.  Thiel,  Epistolae  Romanorum 
Pontificum  genuinae  et  quae  ad  eos  scriptae  sunt  a  S.  Hilaro  usque  ad 
Pelagium  IL,  rec.  et  ed.  A.  Thiel,  I:  AS.  Hilaro  usque  ad  S.  Hormis- 
dam  a.  461 — 523,  Brunsberg,  1886  (the  second  volume  of  this  work,  though 
promised,  was  never  published).  Many  letters  of  the  aforesaid  popes  have 
reached  us  only  through  the  Collectio  Avellana  (see  no.  7).  For  the  new, 
mostly  very  brief,  letters  of  Gelasius  taken  from  the  British  Museum 
manuscript  cf.  S.  Loewenfeld,  Epistolae  Pontificum  Rom.  ineditae,  Leipzig, 
1885,  pp.  1 — 12,  also  P.  Ewald,  Die  Papstbriefe  der  Britischen  Samm- 
lung, in  Neues  Archiv  der  Gesellschaft  f.  ältere  deutsche  Geschichtskunde 
(1880),  v.  275 — 414  503 — 596.  The  letters  of  Popes  Hilary,  Simplicius, 
Felix  III.,  Gelasius  I.  and  Anastasius  II.  were  translated  into  German  by 
S.  Wenzlowsky,  Die  Briefe  der  Päpste- (Bibl.  der  Kirchenväter),  Kempten, 
1879 — 1880,  vi — vii.  For  the  chronology  of  the  papal  letters  from  Hilary 
to  Hormisdas  see  Jaffe,  Reg.  Pontif.  Rom.  (1885),  2.  ed.,  i.  75—109,  also 
O.  Günther,  Avellana-Studien  (Sitzungsberichte  of  Vienna  Academy),  Vienna, 
1896.  The  letter  of  Gelasius  (Jan.  25.,  494)  to  Rusticus,  bishop  of  Lyons 
[Thiel,  Ep.  Rom.  Pontif.,  p.  359),  the  letter  of  congratulation  written  by 
Anastasius  II.  to  Clovis  in  497  [Thiel,  p.  624),  and  the  letter  of  Sym- 
machus (Oct.  13.,  501)    to  Avitus   of  Vienne    [Thiel,   pp.    656  f.)    are   for- 


622  THIRD   PERIOD.      THIRD   SECTION. 

geries  of  Jerome  Vignier,  according  to  Julien  Havet  (§  112,  5).  The 
letter  of  Anastasius  to  Clovis  is  defended  by  B.  Hasenstab ,  Studien  zu 
Ennodius,  Munich,  1890,  pp.  52  ff.  — -A  separate  edition  of  the  decretal 
De  recipiendis  et  non  recipiendis  libris  was  published  by  A.  Thiel,  Bruns- 
berg,  1866.  J.  Friedrich,  Über  die  Unechtheit  der  Dekretale  «De  re- 
cipiendis et  non  recipiendis  libris»  des  Papstes  Gelasius  L,  in  Sitzungs- 
berichte d.  kgl.  bayer.  Akad.  d.  Wissensch.  zu  München,  philos.-philolog. 
and  hist,  series  (1888),  i.  54 — 86;  Th.  Zahn,  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl. 
Kanons  (1890),  ii  1,  259 — 267  ;  A.  Koch,  Der  hl.  Faustus,  Bischof  von  Riez, 
Stuttgart,  1895,  pp.  57—71.  Cf.  §  88,  6.  J.  Hilgers,  Der  Index  der  ver- 
botenen Bücher,  Freiburg,  1904  1907.  The  Sacramentarium  Gelasianum  is 
in  Migne,  PL.,  lxxiv.  1055 — 1244.  A  new  edition  is  owing  to  H.  Wilson, 
The  Gelasian  Sacramentary ,  Liber  sacramentorum  Romanae  ecclesiae, 
edited  by  H.  A.  Wilson,  Oxford,  1894.  P.  de  Puniet,  Les  trois  homelies 
catechetiques  du  sacramentaire  gelasien.  Pour  la  tradition  des  evangiles, 
du  Symbole  et  de  l'oraison  dominicale.  I:  «L'Expositio  Evangeliorum»  ; 
II:  «L'Expositio  Symboli»;  III:  «L'Expositio  Orationis  dominicae»,  in  Rev. 
d'hist.  eccles.  (1904),  pp.  5°5~521  755—786;  (1905),  pp.  15—32.  For 
lurther  details  concerning  this  work  see  the  writings  of  Duchesne  and 
Probst  (§  97,  3),  also  S.  Bäumer,  in  Hist.  Jahrb.  (1893),  xiv.  241 — 301, 
and  F.  Plaine,  Le  sacramentaire  gelasien  et  son  authenticite  substantielle, 
Paris,  1896;  Id.,  De  Sacramentarii  Gelasiani  substantiali  integritate,  in 
Studien  und  Mitteilungen  aus  dem  Benediktiner-  und  Cisterzienserorden 
(1901),  xxii.  131— 147  381—389  577—588.  A.  Roux,  Le  pape  Gelase  I. 
(482—496),  Paris,  1880.  E.  Wölfflin,  in  Archiv  für  latein.  Lexikogr.  und 
Gramm.  (1900),  xii  1,  1— 10.  J.  Rohr,  Gelasius  I.  und  der  Primat,  in 
Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1902),  lxxxiv.  110— 123.  Other  details  concerning 
these  popes  may  be  found  in  H.  Grisar,  Geschichte  Roms  und  der  Päpste 
im  Mittelalter,  Freiburg  i.  Br.,  1901,  i,  passim,  also  in  the  shorter  form 
of  the  same  work:  Roma  alia  fine  del  mondo  antico,  parts  I  and  II, 
Rome,  1899. 

2.  ENNODIUS  OF  PAVIA.  —  Magnus  Felix  Ennodius  was  a  native 
of  Southern  Gaul,  but  came  at  an  early  age  to  Northern  Italy.  He 
was  very  probably  a  teacher  of  rhetoric  before  he  received  the  priest- 
hood, and  at  the  time  of  his  ordination  his  bride  became  a  nun. 
He  was  raised  to  the  see  ofTicinum  (Pavia),  apparently  in  513,  and 
as  such  was  twice  sent  (515  and  517)  by  Pope  Hormisdas  to  the 
emperor  Anastasius  in  the  hope  of  bringing  about  the  union  of 
the  Latin  and  Greek  Churches,  separated  since  the  beginning  of  the 
Acacian  Schism.  He  died  in  521  at  Pavia.  Ennodius  recalls  the 
figure  of  Apollinaris  Sidonius  (§  112,  2);  like  him  Ennodius  is  at 
once  rhetorician  and  bishop,  prose-writer  and  poet.  His  writings, 
however,  exhibit  in  a  more  pronounced  degree  the  Christian  and 
ecclesiastical  elements  of  contemporary  life;  he  was  also  a  zealous 
defender  of  the  papal  primacy.  In  Sirmond's  edition  of  his  writings 
(161 1)  they  are  divided  into  four  groups:  Epistolae,  Opuscula,  Dic- 
tiones,  Carmma.  This  division  is  not  taken  from  the  manuscripts 
which  contain  no  division  into  groups,  but  present  the  writings  of 
Ennodius  without  any  order  whatever.  His  Epistolae  number  two 
hundred  and  ninety-seven,    and   were  arranged   by  Sirmond   in   nine 


§    114.      ITALIAN   WRITERS.  623 

books.  They  were  all  written  before  513,  very  probably  at  Milan, 
while  Ennodius  was  still  a  deacon ;  in  general  they  are  characterized 
by  poverty  of  thought  and  magniloquence  of  diction.  His  ten  Opus- 
cula  miscella  awaken  a  stronger  interest.  Chief  among  them  is  his 
panegyric  on  Theodoric,  the  Ostrogothic  king;  it  is  extremely  bom- 
bastic in  style  and  ultra-flattering  in  contents,  but  exhibits  much 
ability  on  the  part  of  the  writer,  and  ranks  among  the  principal 
sources  of  information  on  the  life  of  Theodoric.  It  was  delivered  in 
507  or  508,  probably  on  the  festivity  kept  in  honor  of  some  political 
event,  but  it  is  not  true,  as  is  usually  stated,  that  our  author  pro- 
nounced this  panegyric  as  an  act  of  gratitude  for  the  services  of 
Theodoric  in  silencing  the  antipope  Laurentius.  Nevertheless,  En- 
nodius had  already  been,  several  years  before,  a  champion  of  the 
rights  of  the  legitimate  pope.  The  charges  against  pope  Sym- 
machus  had  been  rejected  by  a  Roman  synod  in  502;  the  accusers 
of  the  pope  continued  to  complain  of  this  action,  and  published 
an  attack  on  the  synod  entitled :  Adversus  synodum  absolutionis 
incongruae,  i.  e.  against  the  improper  or  unbecoming  conduct  of 
the  synodal  fathers  in  absolving  Symmachus.  Ennodius  refuted  this 
libel  and  defended  the  synod  with  skill  and  success  in  his :  Libellus 
adversus  eos  qui  contra  synodum  scribere  praesumpserunt.  Other 
Opuscula  are  entitled:  Vita  S.  Epiphanii  episcopi  Ticinensis,  a 
celebrated  predecessor  of  the  author  in  the  see  of  Pavia  (f  496), 
written  about  503;  Vita  S.  Antonii  monachi  Lerinensis;  Eucharisti- 
cum  de  vita  sua  (a  title,  assigned  this  work  by  Sirmond  in  imitation 
of  a  similar  poem  of  Paulinus  of  Pella,  §  112,  3):  it  is  a  short 
autobiography  of  the  poet  in  the  shape  of  a  prayer  and  is  mo- 
delled on  the  confessions  of  St.  Augustine ;  Paraenesis  didascalica 
(also  a  title  of  Sirmond),  a  kind  of  manual  of  pedagogy,  composed 
in  511  at  the  request  of  his  friends  Ambrosius  and  Beatus.  The 
(twenty-eight)  Dictiones  offer  a  strange  mixture  of  sacred  and  profane 
elements.  They  are  mostly  models  of  rhetorical  exercises  on  themes 
taken  from  the  pagan  past  of  Rome  or  from  ancient  mythology. 
Finally,  the  Carmina  of  Ennodius  were  divided  by  Sirmond  into 
two  books,  the  first  of  which  includes  twenty-one  short  carmina,  and 
the  second  exhibits  one  hundred  and  fifty-one  brief  epigrammatic 
inscriptions  for  sepulchres,  churches,  images  and  other  works  of  art. 
No  spark  of  poetic  fire  shines  in  either  of  the  two  books. 

The  edition  of  Sirmond  was  published  at  Paris,  161 1  (reprinted  in  Migne, 
PL.,  lxiii.  13—364).  New  complete  editions  were  undertaken  by  W.  Harte  I, 
Vienna,  1882  (Corpus  script,  eccles.  lat.,  vi),  and  Fr.  Vogel,  Berlin,  1885 
(Monum.  Germ.  hist.  Auct.  antiquiss.,  vii).  Hartel  preserves  the  order  and 
division  of  Sirmond,  while  Vogel  rejects  both  and  follows  the  manuscripts. 
Cf.  Vogel,  Chronologische  Untersuchungen  zu  Ennodius,  in  Neues  Archiv 
der  Gesellsch.  für  ältere  deutsche  Geschichtskunde  (1898),  xxiii.  51  —  74. 
On  the   panegyric  on  Theodoric  see  C.  Cipolla,  Intorno   al   panegirico  di 


524  THIRD   PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 

Ennodio  per  re  Teoderico,  Padova,  1889,  reprinted  with  two  other  studies, 
and  entitled  Del  «Panegyricus»  di  Ennodio  in  lode  di  re  Teoderico,  in 
Per  la  storia  d'ltalia  e  dei  suoi  conquistatori,  Bologna,  1895,  pp.  527—573. 
Cipolla  maintains  against  Hasenstab  that  the  panegyric  was  written,  not 
delivered  orally.  M.  Dumoulin,  Le  gouvernement  de  Theodoric  et  la  domi- 
nation des  Ostrogoths  en  Italie  d'apres  les  ceuvres  d'Ennodius,  in  Revue 
historique  (1902),  lxxviii.  1—7  241—265;  (1903),  lxxix.  1—22.  H.  Laufen- 
berg, Der  historische  Wert  des  Panegyricus  des  Bischofs  Ennodius  (Diss.), 
Rostock,  1902.  The  Apology  for  the  Synod  of  502  is  discussed  by 
St.  Liglise,  St.  Ennodius  et  la  Suprematie  pontificate  au  VIe  siecle  (499  to 
503),  Lyons,  1890.  P.  Rasi,  Dell'  arte  metrica  di  Magno  Felice  Ennodio, 
vescovo  di  Pavia,  in  Bollettino  della  Societä  Pavese  di  Storia  (1902),  ii. 
87 — 140;  Id.,  Saggio  di  alcune  particolaritä  nei  distici  di  S.  Ennodio,  in 
Rendiconti  del  r.  Istit.  Lombardo  di  scienze  e  lettere,  ii.  Series  (1902), 
xxxv.  335 — 353.  A.  Dubois,  La  latinite  d'Ennodius.  Contribution  ä  l'etude 
du  latin  litteraire  ä  la  fin   de   l'empire   romain  d'Occident  (These),    Paris, 

1903.  On  Ennodius  in  general  cf.  M.  Fertig,  M.  F.  Ennodius  und  seine 
Zeit,  i,  Passau,  1855;  ii,  Landshut,  i860  (Progr.),  iii,  ib.,  1858.  Fr.  Magani, 
Ennodio,  Pavia,  1886,  3  vols.  B.  Hasenstab,  Studien  zu  Ennodius  (Progr.), 
Munich,  1890.  —  Between  503  and  506,  Ennodius,  then  a  deacon  of  Milan, 
delivered  an  Eulogium  on  Laurentius,  bishop  ofthat  city  (490 — 512),  on  the 
occasion  of  the  anniversary  of  his  consecration :  Dictio  in  natale  Laurentii 
Mediolanensis  episcopi  (Enn.  op.  rec.  Vogel,  pp.  1 — 4).  Several  writers  see  in 
this  Laurentius  the  Laurentius  Mellifluus,  about  whom  Sigebert  of  Gembloux 
(De  viris  ill.,  c.  120)  writes:  Scripsit  librum  de  duobus  temporibus  (id  est 
uno  ab  Adam  usque  ad  Christum,  altero  a  Christo  usque  ad  fmem  saeculi) ; 
declamavit  etiam  homilias  ore  quasi  rnellito,  unde  agnominatur  mellifluus. 
Others  seek  this  Laurentius  in  a  contemporary  bishop  Laurentius  of  No- 
vara,  whose  historical  existence  seems  very  doubtful.  He  is  not  mentioned 
by  F.  Savio ,  Gli  antichi  vescovi  d'ltalia  (Piemonte),  Torino,  1899.  This 
De  duobus  temporibus  is  also  found  under  the  title  Homilia  de  poenitentia, 
and  with  two  other  homilies  De  eleemosyna  and  De  muliere  Chananaea, 
in  Migne,  PL.,  lxvi.  89 — 124.  —  A  panegyric  on  Christ  in  one  hundred 
and  forty-nine  good  hexameters  entitled  De  Christi  Iesu  beneficiis  has 
reached  us  under  the  name  of  Rusticus  Helpidius  (Elpidius;  Ib.,  lxii.  545 
t°  548),  also  a  collection  of  twenty- four  epigrams  of  three  verses  each, 
inscriptions  for  biblical  paintings,  entitled  In  historiam  testamenti  veteris 
et  novi  carmina  (Ib.,  lxii.  543—546).  New  editions  of  the  aforesaid  Car- 
men on  our  Lord  were  prepared  by  H  Müller,  Göttingen,  1868,  and  by 
IV.  Brandes,  Brunswick,  1890  (Progr.).  According  to  Ebert  (Allgem.  Ge- 
schichte der  Lit.  des  Mittelalters,  2.  ed.,  i.  414  fr.),  Rusticus  Elpidius  is 
identical  with  the  deacon  Helpidius,  physician  of  king  Theodoric,  and 
highly  praised  by  Ennodius.  Others  see  the  poet  in  Flavius  Rusticius 
Helpidius  Domnulus,  known  from  his  signature  in  manuscripts,  and  supposed 
to  be  identical  with  Domnulus  the  poet-friend  of  Sidonius  Apollinaris 
(§  112,  2).  Brandes  (in  his  edition  of  the  poem)  and  Manitius  (Gesch. 
der  chnstl.-latein.  Poesie,  Stuttgart,  1891,  380  fr.)  maintain  that  the  poet 
is  neither  the  deacon  Helpidius  nor  the  Gallic  writer  Domnulus,  but  a 
descendant  of  the  Italian  Flavii  Rusticii  in  the  first  half  of  the  sixth  cen- 
tury. In  the  Rhein.  Museum  für  Philologie,  new  series  (1876),  xxxi.  94, 
note  1,  E.  Bahrens  made  known  four  distichs  in  praise  of  the  De  Trini- 
tate  of  St.  Augustine,  entitled  Versus  Rustici  defensoris  S.  Augustini  P.  Rasi, 
Di  alcune  particolaritä,   nel  metro  eroico  e   lirico  di  S.  Ennodio,  Milano, 

1904.  —  The  poet  Arator,  left  an  orphan  in  childhood,  adopted  by  Lau- 
rentius, the  above  mentioned  bishop  of  Milan,  later  on  found  a  protector  in 


§    114-      ITALIAN   WRITERS.  62$ 

Ennodius  and  became  a  subdeacon  of  the  Roman  Church  under  Pope 
Vigilius  (537—555);  and  as  such  put  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  into  Latin 
hexameters:  De  actibus  apostolorum  libri  ii  (Ib.,  lxviii.  63  —  246).  This 
epic  dedicated  to  Pope  Vigilius,  was  shortly  afterwards  (544)  read  publicly 
in  the  Church  of  S.  Petri  ad  vincula,  at  the  request  of  the  learned  circles 
of  Rome.  Arator  took  Sedulius  (§91,  5)  for  his  model,  and  surpassed  him 
in  the  use  of  the  allegorico-mystical  method  of  interpretation  (typica  ratio) 
of  the  biblical  text;  on  the  other  hand,  he  did  not  attain  the  elegance 
and  vigor  of  style  that  belong  to  his  model.  The  Epistola  ad  Parthenium 
in  distichs  (Ib.,  lxviii.  245 — 252)  was  sent  by  Arator  to  a  friend  of  his 
youth  together  with  a  copy  of  his  poem.  A  new  edition  of  both  was  made 
by  A.  Hübner,  Nice,  1850.  Cf.  C.  L.  Leimbach,  Über  den  Dichter  Arator, 
in  Theol.  Studien  und  Kritiken  (1873),  xlvi.  225  —  270. 

3.  DIONYSIUS  EXIGUUS.  —  Dionysius  called  «the  Little»  (Ex- 
iguus),  not  on  account  of  his  stature,  but  because  of  his  voluntary  choice 
of  that  humble  title,  was  a  Scythian  by  birth.  He  repaired  to  Rome 
at  an  early  age,  about  500,  and  lived  there  as  a  monk  until  about 
540.  We  are  indebted  to  the  warm  eulogy  of  his  friend  Cassiodorius 1 
for  such  knowledge  of  his  life  as  we  possess.  His  chief  literary  merit 
consists  in  the  services  rendered  to  Latin  scholars  by  his  numerous 
translations  of  the  treasures  of  Greek  ecclesiastical  literature.  He 
labored  also  both  as  a  translator  and  a  collector  of  the  materials 
of  canon  law.  He  published  in  Latin  a  collection  of  the  decrees  of 
Greek  and  Latin  Councils,  and  in  two  editions.  Of  the  first  edition 
only  the  preface  has  survived.  The  second  edition,  undoubtedly 
published  in  the  first  decade  of  the  sixth  century,  has  reached  us 
intact.  It  begins  with  the  so-called  Apostolic  Canons  (§  75,  8)  and 
comes  down  to  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  (451).  In  the  reign  of 
Pope  Symmachus  (498 — 514),  Dionysius  drew  up  a  collection  of  the 
papal  decretal  letters  from  Siricius  (f  398)  to  Anastasius  II.  (f  498). 
This  collection  of  the  papal  decretals  was  afterward  united  with  the 
second  edition  of  the  collection  of  canons  and  formed  a  whole, 
thenceforth  known  as  the  Dionysiana  (collectio).  Each  of  these 
canonical  collections  acquired  high  authority  in  the  Western  Church. 
At  the  request  of  Pope  Hormisdas  (514  —  523),  Dionysius  compiled 
in  Latin  another  collection  of  canons,  this  time  only  those  of  the 
Greek  Councils;  with  the  exception  of  the  preface,  this  work  has 
perished.  The  name  of  Dionysius  is  for  ever  memorable  in  the 
history  of  Christian  chronology:  we  owe  to  him  the  introduction  of 
the  Dionysian  or  Christian  era.  He  insisted  with  energy  on  the 
adoption  of  the  Alexandrine  paschal  cycle  of  nineteen  years,  and  in 
525  continued  for  ninety-five  years  the  paschal  tables  of  St.  Cyril 
of  Alexandria.  On  this  occasion  he  rejected,  for  the  first  time,  the 
use  of  the  Diocletian  era,  and  began  his  computation  from  the  birth 
of  Christ.    At  the  same  time  he  miscalculated  this  date  and  located 

1  Institutiones,  i.   23. 
Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  4° 


Ö2Ö  THIRD    PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 

it  in  the  year  754  A.  U.  C,  whereas  it  took  place  a  few  years  before 
toward  the  end  of  749  A.  U.  C.  i.  e.   5  B.  C. 

All  these  collections  are  printed  in  Migne ,  PL.,  lxvii.  9  ff.  The  first 
version  in  Migne,  the  Epistola  synodica  S.  Cyrilli  et  concilii  Alexandrini, 
of  the  year  430  (Ib.,  lxvii.  11 — 18),  is  not  the  work  of  Dionysius,  but  of 
Marius  Mercator  (§  77,  9);  cf.  Fr.  Maassen,  Geschichte  der  Quellen  und 
der  Literatur  des  kanonischen  Rechts,  Graz,  1870,  i.  132 — 136.  We  have 
already  mentioned  the  version  by  Dionysius  of  the  work  of  Gregory  of 
Nyssa  on  the  constitution  of  man  (§  69,  10;  Ib.,  lxvii.  345—408).  The 
Dionysiana  collectio  is  printed  in  Migne  (1.  c,  lxvii.  139 — 316.  Another 
version  of  the  Apostolic  Canons  made  by  Dionysius  was  first  edited  by 
C.  H.  Turner,  Ecclesiae  Occidentalis  monumenta  iuris  antiquissima,  Oxford, 
1899,  i.  1 — 32;  Id.,  Nicaeni  concilii  praefationes,  capitula,  symbolum,  canones, 
ib.,  1904.  For  a  discussion  of  the  Epistolae  dime  de  ratione  paschae  (Ib., 
lxvii.  19—28;  the  first  letter  also  ib.,  lxvii.  483 — 494),  the  Cyclus  decem- 
novennalis  Dionysii  (Ib.,  lxvii.  493 — 498),  and  the  Argumenta  paschalia  (Ib., 
lxvii.  497 — 508)  see  L.  Ideler,  Handbuch  der  mathematischen  und  techni- 
schen Chronologie,  Berlin,  1826,  ii.  285  ff.  Cf.  Maassen,  1.  c,  pp.  422  to 
440  960 — 965.  See  B.  M.  Lersch ,  Einleitung  in  die  Chronologie,  Frei- 
burg, 1899.  Ginzel,  Einleitung  in  die  Chronologie,  Leipzig,  1907.  Dom 
Ambrogio  Amelli  is  of  opinion  that  the  Latin  collection  of  documents 
discovered  by  him,  and  pertaining  to  the  Eutychianist  controversies,  was 
compiled  by  Dionysius  the  Little  in  the  years  530 — 535.  Cf.  Spicilegium 
Casinense  complectens  Analecta  sacra  et  profana  (1893),  i.  1  — 189:  Dio- 
nysii Exigni  nova  Collectio  pro  controversia  de  uno  e  Trinitate  in  carne 
passo;  cf.  A.  Amelli,  S.  Leone  Magno  e  l'Oriente,  Rome,  1882,  Monte- 
cassino,   1890,  and  §  97,  3. 

4.  EUGIPPIUS  ABBAS.  —  Eugippius  (Eugipius  or  Eugepius),  a  na- 
tive of  Africa  and  a  companion  of  St.  Severinus  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  the  Danube  (Noricum  Ripense,  between  Passau  and  Vienna), 
embraced  the  monastic  life  about  492  and  became  abbot  of  a  mona- 
stery at  Castellum  Lucullianum,  near  Naples.  His  Excerpta  ex  ope- 
ribus  S.  Augustiiii  are  an  edifying  collection  of  passages  selected 
from  various  books  of  St.  Augustine,  with  an  ascetic  purpose,  and 
dedicated  to  Proba,  a  virgo  Deo  consecrata  at  Rome.  The  numerous 
extant  copies  of  this  work  are  a  proof  of  its  mediaeval  popularity. 
Modern  readers  find  more  pleasure  in  the  perusal  of  his  Vita  S.  Se- 
verini  monachi  (the  fatherly  friend  of  Eugippius,  whose  death  oc- 
curred in  482  at  Favianis  (now  Mauer  near  Oeling  on  the  Danube). 
The  trustworthy  and  picturesque  characteristics  of  land  and  people 
with  which  this  biography  abounds,  throw  a  meteor-like  light  across 
the  historical  darkness  of  these  decades.  Eugippius  left  also  a  letter 
to  the  Roman  deacon  Paschasius  (§   in,  2). 

For  the  writings  of  Eugippius  see  Migne,  PL.,  lxii.  559—1088  1167  to 
1200.  A  new  edition  was  brought  out  by  P.  Knöll,  Vienna,  188s  -  1886 
(Corpus  script,  eccles.  lat.,  ix.  1-2).  The  Vita  S.  Severini  has  been  often 
edited  separately;  the  best  editions  (together  with  the  letter  concerning 
this  Vita)  are  those  of  Ä  Sauppe,  Berlin,  1877  (Monum.  Germ.  hist.  Auct 
Antiqmss.,  1.  2);  and  Th.  Mommsen,  Berlin,  i8q8.    Cf.  Mommsen,  in  Hermes 


§    114-      ITALIAN   WRITERS.  627 

(1897),  xxxii.  454—468.  It  has  been  often  translated  into  German,  e.  g. 
by  K.  Rodenberg,  Berlin,  1878,  Leipzig,  1884  (Die  Geschichtsschreiber  der 
deutschen  Vorzeit),  and  S.  Brunner,  Vienna,  1879.  Cf.  Wattenbach,  Deutsch- 
lands Geschichtsquellen  im  Mittelalter,  6.  ed.,  i.  44 — 51. 

5.  BENEDICT  OF  NURSIA.  —  St.  Benedict  was  born  in  480  at 
Nursia  (Norcia  in  Umbria)  and  died  in  543  in  his  monastery  of 
Monte  Cassino.  He  composed  about  529  the  monastic  rule  that 
bears  his  name.  The  surviving  manuscripts  are  divided  into  two 
families.  According  to  the  researches  of  Traube,  three  manuscripts 
of  the  ninth  century  (codices  of  St.  Gall,  Vienna,  and  Munich)  re- 
present the  original  text  as  taken  from  the  autograph  of  the  Saint, 
while  all  other  manuscripts,  even  those  older  than  the  above,  re- 
present a  longer  text  viz.  the  rule  as  interpolated  by  Simplicius,  the 
disciple  of  St.  Benedict.  Its  centralized  and  comprehensive  organisa- 
tion of  the  entire  monastic  life,  and  its  hearty  approval  by  the  great 
popes  of  the  succeeding  period,  assured  to  this  document  the  final 
victory  over  all  other  Western  rules ;  from  the  eighth  century  to  the 
beginning  of  the  thirteenth  it  was  almost  the  only  monastic  rule  in 
the  Latin  Church.  It  lifted  monasticism  to  its  highest  level,  and 
served  innumerable  holy  souls  as  a  guide  and  mentor  in  the  way 
of  perfection. 

Migne,  PL.,  lxvi.  215 — 932:  S.  P.  Benedicti  Regula,  cum  commentariis ; 
933—934:  S.  P.  Benedicti  sermo  habitus  in  discessu  S.  Mauri  et  socio- 
rum ,  epistola  ad  S.  Maurum  missa.  E.  Schmidt ,  O.  S.  B.,  published  an 
edition  of  the  Rule  with  a  copious  apparatus  of  «variant  readings»,  Ratis- 
bon,  1880;  also  (ib.)  without  the  apparatus  criticus.  Dom  Schmidt  made 
also  a  German  version  of  the  Rule  (ib.,  1891  1893  1902).  An  Italian 
version  of  the  «buon  secolo»  was  edited  by  E.  Lisi,  Florence,  1855.  A 
new  edition  of  the  Rule  was  made  by  E.  Wolff lin,  Leipzig,  1895;  cf.  Id., 
in  Sitzungsberichte  der  kgl.  bayer.  Akad.  der  Wissensch.,  philos.-philolog. 
and  hist,  series  (1895),  pp.  429 — 454,  and  in  Archiv  für  latein.  Lexiko- 
graphie und  Grammatik  (1896),  ix.  493 — 521.  Regulae  S.  Benedicti  tra- 
ditio codicum  mss.  Casinensium  a  praestantissimo  teste  usque  repetita  co- 
dice  Sangallensi  914  nunc  primum  omnibus  numeris  expresso  cura  et  studio 
monachorum  in  archicoenobio  Casinensi  degentium,  Montecassino ,  1900. 
L.  Traube ,  Textgeschichte  der  «Regula  S.  Benedicti»  ,  Munich,  1898,  in 
Abhandlungen  der  kgl.  bayer.  Akad.  der  Wissensch.  E.  C.  Butler ,  The 
text  of  St.  Benedict's  Rule  (1899),  in  Downside  Review;  Id.,  The  Monte- 
cassino text  of  St.  Benedict's  Rule,  in  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (1901  to 
1902),  iii.  458—468  (against  Traube);  cf.  J.  Chapman,  in  Revue  Bene'- 
dictine  (1902),  xix.  314 — 317.  H.  Plenkers ,  Neuere  Arbeiten  und  Streit- 
fragen über  die  Benediktinerregel  (for  Traube),  Vienna,  1902,  in  Zeitschr. 
für  die  Österreich.  Gymn.  (1902),  liii.  97  —  115,  and  E.  Schmidt,  in  Studien 
und  Mitteilungen  aus  dem  Benediktiner-  und  dem  Cistercienserorden  (1902), 
xxiii.  363—372  (against  Plenkers).  Cf.  Id.,  ib.  (1903),  xxiv.  18—33. 
H.  Plenkers,  Untersuchungen  zur  Überlieferungsgeschichte  der  ältesten  latei- 
nischen Mönchsregeln  (Munich,  1906),  in  Quellen  und  Untersuchungen  zur 
lateinischen  Philologie  des  Mittelalters,  i.  3.  J.  Besse,  St.  Benoit  de  Nursie, 
in  Diet,  de  la  Theologie,  ii.  709 — 717. 

40* 


628  THIRD   PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 

6.  VICTOR  OF  CAPUA.  —  Apart  from  a  few  fragments,  the  works 
of  Victor  of  Capua  (f  554)  have  perished.  They  seem  to  have  dealt 
chiefly  with  the  interpretation  of  Scripture.  He  drew  much  of  his 
material  from  the  Greek  exegetes. 

The  so-called  Evangelicae  harmoniae  Ammonii  Alex,  interprete  Victore 
episc.  Capuano  are  in  Migne,  PL.,  lxviii.  251 — 358;  cf.  §  18,  3.  For  the 
Fragmenta  D.  Polycarpi  Smyrn.  see  ib.,  lxviii.  359—360;  cf.  §  10,  3.  A 
Fragmentum  de  cyclo  paschali  ib.,  lxviii.  1097 — 1098.  Scholia  veterum 
Patrum  (S.  Polycarpi,  Origenis,  S.  Basilii  M. ,  Diodori  Tarsensis  etc.)  a 
Victore  episc.  Capuae  collecta,  in  Pitra ,  Spicilegium  Solesmense,  Paris, 
1852,  i.  265 — 277.  An  Excerptum  e  libello  reticulo,  seu  de  area  Noe, 
under  the  name  of  Victor,  Migne,  PL.,  lxviii.  287 — 289.  For  additions  and 
corrections  see  Pitra,  Analecta  sacra  et  classica,  Paris,  1888,  part  I,  pp.  163 
to  165.  In  the  Revue  Benedictine  (1890),  vii.  416 — 417,  G.  Mori?i  claims 
for  Victor  the  letter  to  Constans,  bishop  of  Aquino,  that  in  some  manu- 
scripts of  the  Lectionarius  Romanus  appears  as  a  letter  of  St.  Jerome 
{Migne,  PL.,  xxx.  501 — 504). 

7.  COLLECTIO  AVELLANA.  —  This  is  the  name  given  by  the 
scholarly  Ballerini  brothers  (1757)  to  a  collection  of  imperial  and 
papal  letters,  made  very  probably  in  the  latter  half  of  the  sixth 
century  at  Rome,  and  for  private  use.  The  name  was  however  not 
quite  appropriate:  we  know  now  that  the  Codex  Avellanus,  once  the 
property  of  the  Umbrian  monastery  S.  Crucis  in  fonte  Avellana  (now 
in  the  Vatican),  is  not,  as  the  Ballerini  believed,  the  oldest  and 
best  witness  to  the  text ;  it  is,  like  all  other  manuscripts,  a  copy  of 
the  Codex  Vaticanus  3787,  saec.  xi.  in.  The  contents  of  the  col- 
lection range  in  date  from  367  to  553,  and  are  more  ecclesiastico- 
historical  than  canonical  in  character;  most  of  the  various  pieces  have 
been  preserved  for  posterity  only  through  their  incorporation  in  this 
documentary  compilation. 

The  Avellana  was  first  edited  completely  by  O.  Günther,  Vienna,  1895 
to  1898  (Corpus  script,  eccles.  lat.,  xxxv),  cf.  Id.,  Avellanastudien,  Vienna, 
1896,  in  the  Sitzungsberichte  of  the  Academy  of  Vienna.  —  We  owe  to 
Apponius,  an  Italian  monk  of  the  sixth  century  (Mai),  a  noteworthy  com- 
mentary on  the  Canticle  of  canticles  in  twelve  books.  The  first  six  were 
published  in  1538  at  Freiburg  i.  Br.,  and  later  in  Maxima  Bibl.  vet.  Patrum, 
Lyons,  1677,  xiv.  98-128.  Mai  added,  in  Spicilegium  Romanum,  Rome, 
1841,  v  1,  1-85,  the  seventh,  eighth  and  part  of  the  ninth  books.  The 
entire  work  was  edited  by  Bottino  and  Martini:  Apponii  scriptoris  vetu- 
stissimi  m  Canticum  canticorum  explanationis  libri  xii  e  codice  Sessoriano 
nunc  pnmum  vulgantur  curantibus  H.  B.  et  J.  M.,  Rome,  1843.  J.  Witte, 
Der  Kommentar  des  Apponius  zum  Hohenliede  (Diss.),  Erlangen,  1901. 

§  115.    Boethius  and  Cassiodorius. 

1.  boethius.  —  Anicius  Manlius  Torquatus  Severinus  Boethius, 
a  descendant  of  the  famous  ancient  family  of  the  Anicii  that  had  long 
before  embraced  Christianity,  was  born  at  Rome  about  480.  Though 
left  an  orphan  at  an  early  age,    he  received  an  excellent  education, 


§    115.      BOETHIUS    AND    CASSIODORIUS.  629 

particularly  in  the  Greek  language  and  literature.  His  extraordinary 
learning  and  noble  descent,  as  well  as  his  excellent  personal  quali- 
ties, won  for  him  the  esteem  and  good  will  of  the  Ostrogothic  king 
Theodoric.  In  510  he  was  made  consul,  and  in  522  he  had  the 
happiness  of  seeing  his  two  youthful  sons  invested  with  the  same 
high  office.  Boethius  was  destined,  however,  to  experience  the  cruel 
vicissitudes  of  fortune.  He  had  defended,  openly  and  courageously, 
the  Senator  Albinus  who  was  accused  of  entertaining  a  secret  cor- 
respondence with  the  emperor  Justin  I.  In  consequence  Boethius  was 
himself  suspected  of  treasonable  relations  with  the  Byzantine  court. 
He  was  also  accused  of  magical  practices.  The  friendly  relations  of 
Justin  and  the  pope  (John  I.)  filled  the  mind  of  the  Arian  king  with 
suspicion  regarding  the  loyalty  of  the  Roman  and  Catholic  popu- 
lation. In  these  dispositions  he  listened  to  the  enemies  of  his  former 
favorite,  who  had  meanwhile  been  accused  of  treason  by  a  servile  senate. 
After  languishing  for  some  time  in  prison  at  Pavia,  he  was  cruelly 
put  to  death  between  524  and  526.  —  At  an  early  period  of  his 
life  Boethius  devoted  himself  to  one  great  task,  the  translation  and 
interpretation  of  the  works  of  Aristotle  and  the  dialogues  of  Plato, 
with  the  intention  of  demonstrating  that  in  their  principal  points  both 
systems  of  philosophy  really  agreed1.  He  executed  but  a  small 
part  of  this  grandiose  plan.  A  number  of  his  versions  have  reached 
us,  among  them  the  Analytica  priora  and  posteriora,  the  Soph. 
Elenchi,  and  the  Topica  of  Aristotle  (his  commentary  on  the  latter 
work  has  perished).  There  is  also  extant  his  version  of  the  Aristo- 
telian (?)  work  De  interpretatione,  with  two  commentaries,  one  for 
beginners,  the  other  (more  extensive)  for  advanced  students;  by 
reason  of  its  learning  and  acumen  this  latter  commentary,  composed 
between  507  and  509,  is  the  masterpiece  of  the  author.  Other  ex- 
tant philosophical  labors  of  Boethius  are:  his  version  of  the  Cat- 
egories of  Aristotle  with  a  commentary  (510),  his  commentary  (before 
510)  on  the  version  of  Porphyry's  Isagoge  by  Marius  Victorinus 
(§  87,  8),  his  own  version  of  the  Isagoge  with  a  commentary,  his: 
Introductio  ad  categoricos  syllogismos,  De  categoricis  syllogismis, 
De  hypotheticis  syllogismis,  and  De  divisione.  The  work  De  defini- 
tione  is  erroneously  ascribed  to  Boethius  (§  87,  8).  Other  works 
of  Boethius  are  similar  in  contents,  or  correlated,  e.  g.  the  long 
but  incomplete  commentary  on  the  Topica  of  Cicero,  the  works: 
De  differentiis  topicorum,  De  institutione  musica,  De  institutione 
arithmetica,  De  geometria;  the  authenticity  of  the  latter  work  is 
doubted  by  some.  —  During  his  imprisonment  Boethius  composed 
his  famous  work :  Philosophiae  consolatio,  or :  De  consolatione  philo- 
sophiae,  in  five  books.  In  the  first  book  a  majestic  female  appears 
to  the  sorrowful  and  complaining  philosopher ;  she  is  Philosophy  and 

1  Cf.  init.  of  book  2  of  his  larger  commentary  on  De  interpretatione. 


63O  THIRD    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

assures  him  that  she  has  come  for  the  purpose  of  sharing  the  burden 
that  he  is  bearing  for  her  sake.  In  the  second  book  she  proceeds 
to  apply  healing  remedies  to  his  troubled  spirit:  hitherto  he  has 
lived  in  the  enjoyment  of  all  the  favors  of  fortune,  but  fortune  is 
essentially  something  variable;  true  happiness  is  found  only  within 
ourselves;  riches,  position,  power,  are  things  of  no  value;  the  love 
of  fame,  in  particular,  is  a  great  folly.  At  the  beginning  of  the  third 
book  the  philosopher  begs  for  the  application  of  more  powerful 
remedies,  whereupon  Philosophy  makes  known  to  him  that  God  is 
the  only  source  of  true  happiness.  He  is ,  indeed ,  the  last  end  of 
all  things;  all  things  tend  towards  Him,  however  unconsciously;  He 
directs  all  things  for  the  best.  The  fourth  book  opens  with  an  ob- 
jection of  Boethius :  How  can  evil  be  triumphant  on  earth,  if  it  be 
really  God,  and  not  chance,  that  governs  the  world  and  directs  the 
lives  of  men?  Philosophy  explains  to  him  that  Providence  leads  the 
good  man  mysteriously  towards  true  happiness,  while  the  good  for- 
tune of  the  wicked  man  is  only  apparent ;  after  death  he  must  meet 
with  punishment.  Happiness  and  unhappiness  are  dependent  on  per- 
sonal merit  or  on  the  lack  thereof;  the  external  changes  of  fortune 
are  disposed  by  God  after  the  manner  of  a  physician  and  with  a 
view  to  the  conditions  of  health  that  each  soul  exhibits.  The  fifth 
book  instructs  Boethius  on  the  nature  of  chance  and  on  the  har- 
mony between  the  free  will  of  man  and  the  foreknowledge  of  God. 
The  whole  closes  with  an  admonition  to  detest  vice  and  to  love  and 
practise  virtue.  In  concept  and  execution  the  writing  is  an  admirable 
work  of  literary  art.  Its  diction  is  always  elegant  and  correct,  while 
the  dialogue  lends  movement  and  life  to  the  profound  considerations 
of  the  work ;  the  prose  text  is  interspersed  with  numerous  poems  in 
many  metres.  Some  of  these  poems  are  little  masterpieces,  while  all 
of  them  serve  as  pleasant  halting-places  and  relieve  the  mind  from 
the  strain  of  a  close  and  continuous  dialectic.  Boethius  is  an  eclectic, 
of  the  Platonist  or  rather  Neoplatonist  type.  Specific  Christian  thoughts 
are  seemingly  absent  from  this  work;  the  name  of  Christ  does  not 
occur,  nor  is  there  any  reference  to  the  truths  of  Christian  faith.  In 
modern  times  many  have  wondered  that  in  a  work  composed  in  the 
presence  of  death,  or  at  least  in  close  proximity  thereto,  a  Christian 
should  have  called  on  Philosophy  to  console  him,  instead  of  Theo- 
logy. It  may  be  said  that  in  the  days  of  Boethius,  when  there  was 
not  question  of  strictly  theological  problems,  the  teachings  of  an 
hereditary  philosophy  were  more  frequently  looked  on  as  a  source  of 
consolation  than  theology.  On  the  other  hand,  we  do  not  need  to 
believe  that  this  work  manifests  the  entire  spiritual  life  of  its  author, 
all  his  thoughts  and  his  whole  faith.  When  we  consider  that  philosophy 
was  his  favorite  occupation,  we  need  not  wonder  that,  even  amid 
the  gloomy  circumstances   of  his  end,   he   turned   to    meditation    on 


§    115-      BOETHIUS    AND    CASSIODORIUS.  63 1 

its  teachings  as  a  source  of  spiritual  comfort  and  peace.  In  tone 
and  color  the  work  is  undoubtedly  Christian;  Christian  views  of  the 
world  and  life,  though  not  formally  set  forth,  are  tacitly  maintained; 
the  purity  of  the  author's  ethical  principles,  and  particularly  the 
decision  and  vigor  with  which  they  are  expounded,  show  him  to  be 
not  only  a  Christian,  but  one  very  profoundly  convinced  of  the  truth 
of  his  faith.  —  It  was,  therefore,  rash  to  conclude  from  the  philo- 
sophical attitude  of  the  author  of  the  De  philosophiae  consolatione  that 
he  was  not  a  Christian  (an  opinion  entertained  in  modern  times  especially 
by  Obbarius),  or  that  he  was  a  Christian  merely  in  name  and  appearance 
(as  Nitzsch  maintained).  This  false  view  of  the  religion  of  Boethius 
was  the  principal  reason  some  critics  had  for  refusing  to  recognize  his 
authorship  of  certain  theological  works.  The  five  treatises  in  question 
may  be  described  as  an  attempt  to  shape  the  doctrinal  contents  of 
Christian  theology  on  strictly  scientific  lines,  i.  e.  to  create  for  Chris- 
tian doctrine  a  logical  setting  and  framework.  The  first  of  these 
treatises  is  entitled:  De  Sancta  Trinitate;  its  six  chapters  and  their 
prologue  deal  with  the  unity  of  the  divine  nature  in  three  persons. 
The  second  is  very  short  and  discusses  the  relation  of  the  three 
persons  to  the  divine  nature:  Utrum  Pater  et  Filius  et  Spiritus 
Sanctus  de  divinitate  substantialiter  praedicentur.  The  third  is  entitled: 
Quomodo  substantiae  in  eo  quod  sint  bonae  sint,  cum  non  sint  sub- 
stantialia  bona.  The  fourth:  De  fide  (De  fide  Christiana,  De  fide 
catholica)  contains  a  summary  of  instruction  on  the  principal  points  of 
the  Christian  religion.  The  fifth:  Liber  contra  Nestorium  et  Eutychen, 
at  once  the  longest  and  most  important  of  the  five  treatises,  is  a 
polemico-doctrinal  attack  on  Nestorianism  and  Monophysitism.  It  is 
absolutely  impossible  to  maintain  that  there  exists  any  incompati- 
bility between  the  fundamental  ideas  of  these  treatises  and  those  of 
the  Consolatio.  Krieg  has  shown  that,  though  there  is  still  some 
reason  for  doubting  the  authenticity  of  the  fourth  treatise,  the  evi- 
dence of  the  manuscripts  makes  it  certain  that  Boethius  is  the 
author  of  the  first,  second,  third,  and  fifth.  Among  some  extracts 
from  a  lost  work  of  Cassiodorius  (see  no.  4)  discovered  by  Holder 
and  edited  by  Usener  (1877)  we  read  concerning  Boethius:  Scripsit 
librum  de  Sancta  Trinitate  et  capita  quaedam  dogmatica  et  librum 
contra  Nestorium.  It  is  a  contemporary  who  speaks  and  one  per- 
fectly well  acquainted  with  the  subjects  he  is  describing:  he  attri- 
butes to  Boethius  two  works  agreeing  in  contents  and  title  with  the 
first  and  fifth  of  the  treatises  in  question,  also  other  works  of  a  theo- 
logical character.    The  fourth  treatise  is,  therefore,  the  only  one  the 

1    • 
authorship    of  which   is   open   to    question.  —  Boethius  survived   in 

his  works  in  a  measure  vouchsafed  to  very  few  other  writers.  It  was 
through  his  philosophical  writings  and  especially  through  his  trans- 
lation of  the  Isagoge    of  Porphyry,    and   his   commentaries   on   that 


532  THIRD    PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 

work,  that  the  Middle  Ages  mastered  the  Aristotelian  logic ;  he  may, 
therefore,  be  looked  on  as  the  founder  of  mediaeval  scholasticism. 
There  is  manuscript  evidence  to  show  that  as  early  as  the  ninth  and 
tenth  centuries  his  theological  treatises  found  commentators.  Some  other 
commentaries,  the  work  of  later  writers,  have  been  printed,  e.  g.  those 
of  Gilbert  de  la  Poree  (f  1154)  Pseudo-Beda  (probably  Gottfried  of 
Auxerre,  f  1 1 80),  and  St.  Thomas  Aquinas.  The  mediaeval  influence 
and  diffusion  of  the  Philosophiae  consolatio  were  really  extraordinary: 
it  was  everywhere  looked  on  as  a  beloved  heirloom  of  Christian 
antiquity.  Its  text  found  a  long  series  of  commentators,  from  Asser, 
the  teacher  of  king  Alfred  at  the  end .  of  the  ninth  century,  to  Mur- 
mellius,  at  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century.  Other  scholars 
translated  it  into  their  native  tongues:  Alfred  the  Great,  king  of 
England  (f  901)  into  Anglo-Saxon,  and  Notker  Labeo,  monk  of 
St.  Gall  (f  1022),  into  German;  it  was  translated  several  times  into 
Italian  and  French.  There  are  also  mediaeval  translations  into  Greek 
(one)  and  Hebrew  (one).  Finally  it  found  frequent  imitators :  among 
these  tributes  to  its  fame  and  influence  we  may  mention  three  works 
entitled  De  consolatione  (or  consolationibus)  theologiae,  by  the  Do- 
minican John  of  Tambach  (f  1372),  by  Matthew  of  Cracow,  bishop 
of  Worms  (f  14 10),  and  by  John  Gerson,  chancellor  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Paris  (f  1429). 

2.  literature  on  boethius.  —  The  works  of  Boethius,  especially  the 
Consolatio,  have  reached  us  in  many  manuscripts,  dating  from  the  ninth 
to  the  sixteenth  century.  G.  Schepss,  Handschriftliche  Studien  zu  Boethius 
«De  consolatione  philosophiae»  (Progr.),  Würzburg,  1881;  Id.,  Geschicht- 
liches aus  Boethiushandschriften,  in  Neues  Archiv  der  Gesellsch.  f.  ältere 
deutsche  Geschichtskunde  (1886),  xi.  123 — 140;  Id.,  Zu  Boethius,  in  Com- 
mentationes  Woelfflinianae ,  Leipzig,  1891,  pp.  275 — 280.  —  Complete 
editions  of  Boethius  appeared  at  Venice,  1492  1499,  and  at  Basel,  1546 
1570.  The  best  and  most  complete  edition  is  that  in  Migne,  PL.,  lxiii 
lxiv.  —  A.  M.  S.  Boetii  Commentarii  in  librum  Aristotelis  irspl  IppLTjvefac, 
rec.  C.  Meiser,  Leipzig,  1877 — 1880,  2  vols.  For  the  works  of  Boethius 
on  logic  see  C.  Prantl,  Geschichte  der  Logik  im  Abendlande,  Leipzig, 
1855,  i.  679 — 722,  and  Di  Giovanni,  Severino  Boezio  filosofo,  Palermo, 
1880.  His  commentaries  on  the  Topica  of  Cicero  are  discussed  by  Th. 
Stangl,  Boethiana  (Diss,  inaug.),  Gotha,  1882.  A.  M.  T.  S.  Boetii  De  in- 
stitutione  arithmetica  libro  duo,  De  institutione  musica  libri  quinque.  Acce- 
dit  Geometria  quae  fertur  Boetii.  E  libris  mss.  ed.  G.  Friedlein,  Leipzig, 
1867.  O.  Paul,  Boetius  und  die  griechische  Harmonik.  Des  A.  M.  S. 
Boetius  fünf  Bücher  über  die  Musik  aus  der  lateinischen  in  die  deutsche 
Sprache  übertragen  und  mit  besonderer  Berücksichtigung  der  griechischen 
Harmonik  sachlich  erklärt,  Leipzig,  1872.  G.  Schepss,  Zu  den  mathematisch- 
musikalischen Werken  des  Boethius,  in  Abhandlungen  aus  dem  Gebiet  der 
klassischen  Altertumswissenschaft,  W.  v.  Christ  dargebracht,  Munich,  1891. 
pp.  107— 113.  The  spurious  work  De  unitate  et  uno  [Migne,  PL.,  lxiii. 
1075— 1078)  was  edited  anew  by  P.  Correns,  Die  dem  Boethius  fälschlich  zu- 
geschriebene Abhandlung  des  Dominicus  Gundisalvi  «de  unitate»,  Münster, 
1891  (Beiträge  zur  Geschichte  der  Philosophie  des  Mittelalters,  i.  1).  — 
A.  M.  S.  Boetii  De   consolatione   philosophiae   libri   quinque.     Ad   optim. 


§    115-      BOETHIUS   AND    CASSIODORIUS.  633 

libr.  mss.  nondum  collatorum  fidem  rec.  et  proleg.  instr.  Th.  Obbarius, 
Jena,  1843.  A.  M.  S.  Boetii  Philosophiae  consolationis  libri  quinque. 
Accedunt  eiusdem  atque  incertorum  opuscula  sacra.  Rec.  R.  Peiper, 
Leipzig,  187 1.  The  opuscula  sacra  (pp.  147 — 218)  are  the  five  theological 
treatises,  of  which  Peiper  accepts  only  the  first  three  as  works  of  Boethius. 
In  the  prolegomena  Peiper  discusses  such  questions  as  de  commentatoribus 
Consolationis,  de  sacrorum  operum  commentatoribus,  de  interpretibus,  de 
imitatoribus  Philosophiae  consolationis.  The  Greek  version  of  the  Con- 
solatio  was  made  about  the  middle  of  the  fourteenth  century  by  the  monk 
Maximus  Planudes  of  Constantinople;  its  poetical  pieces  were  edited  by 
C.  E.  Weber,  Darmstadt,  1832  —  1833  (cf.  Peiper,  p.  lvi);  the  whole  work 
was  edited  by  E.  A.  Bitant,  Geneva,  1871.  The  Anglo-Saxon  version  of 
king  Alfred  was  edited  by  W.  J.  Sedgefield ,  London,  1899;  the  German 
version  of  Notker  Labeo  was  edited  by  P.  Piper,  Die  Schriften  Notkers  und 
seiner  Schule,  Freiburg  i.  Br.,  1882 — 1883,  i.  N.  Scheid,  Die  Weltanschauung 
des  Boethius  und  sein  «Trostbuch»,  in  Stimmen  aus  Maria-Laach  (1890), 
xxxix.  374 — 392.  A.  Efigelbrecht,  Die  Consolatio  philosophiae  des  Boethius. 
Beobachtungen  über  den  Stil  des  Autors  und  die  Überlieferung  seines 
Werkes  (1902),  in  Sitzungsberichte  of  the  Vienna  Academy.  On  the 
metrical  compositions  in  the  Consolatio  cf.  H.  Hiittinger,  Studia  in  Boetii 
carmina  collata,  parti  (Progr.),  Ratisbon,  1900;  part  II  (Progr.),  ib.,  1902. 
—  The  five  theological  treatises  (edited  anew  by  Peiper,  as  stated  above) 
are  fully  discussed  by  G.  Bosisio,  Süll'  autenticitä  delle  opere  teologiche  di 
A.  M.  T.  S.  Boezio,  Pavia,  1869.  C.  Krieg,  Über  die  theologischen 
Schriften  des  Boethius,  in  Jahresbericht  der  Görresgesellschaft  für  1884, 
Cologne,  1885,  pp.  23 — 52.  y.  Dräseke,  Über  die  theologischen  Schriften 
des  Boethius,  in  Jahrb.  für  protest.  Theol.  (1886),  xii.  312 — 333  (defends 
their  authenticity,  against  Nitzsch).  K.  Künstle,  Eine  Bibliothek  der  Sym- 
bole und  theologischer  Traktate,  Mainz,  1900,  pp.  51  ff.  E.  K.  Rand,  Der 
dem  Boethius  zugeschriebene  Traktat  «De  fide  catholica» ,  untersucht, 
Leipzig,  1901,  in  Jahrb.  für  Philol.  (supplem.),  xxvi.  405 — 461.  S.  Brandt, 
Entstehungszeit  und  zeitliche  Folge  der  Werke  von  Boethius,  in  Philologus 
(1903),  lxii.  141 — 154  234 — 275.  —  In  general  on  the  person  and  writings 
of  Boethius:  y.  G.  Suttner,  Boethius,  der  letzte  Römer  (Progr.),  Eichstätt, 
1852.  Er.  Nitzsch,  Das  System  des  Boethius  und  die  ihm  zugeschriebenen 
theologischen  Schriften,  Berlin,  i860.  L.  Biraghi,  Boezio,  filosofo,  teologo, 
martire  a  Calvenzano  milanese,  Milan,  1865.  H.  Usener,  Anecdoton  Hol- 
deri.  Ein  Beitrag  zur  Geschichte  Roms  in  ostgotischer  Zeit  (Festschrift), 
Bonn,  1877,  pp.  37 — 66:  Boethius.  G.  Bednarz ,  De  universo  orationis 
colore  et  syntaxi  Boethii,  part  I  (Diss,  inaug.),  Breslau,  1883;  Id.,  De  syn- 
taxi  Boethii,  part  I  (Progr.),  Strigau,  1892.  A.  Hildebrand,  Boethius  und 
seine  Stellung  zum  Christentum,  Ratisbon,  1885.  G.  Boissier,  Le  christia- 
nisme  de  Boece,  in  Journal  des  savants,  Paris,  1889.  G.  Semeria,  II  cris- 
tianesimo  di  Severino  Boezio  rivendicato  (These),  Rome,  1900,  from  Studi 
e  Docum.  di  Storia  e  Diritto,  xxi;  C.  Cipolla ,  Per  la  storia  del  processo 
di  Boezio,  ib.  (1900),  xxi.  335  —  346.  H.  E.  Stewart,  Boethius,  Edinburgh- 
London,  1891.     P  Godet,  Boece,  in  Diet,  de  Theologie,  ii.  919—922. 

3.  CASSIODORIUS.  —  Magnus  Aurelius  Cassiodorius  Senator,  the  con- 
temporary of  Boethius,  was  a  man  quite  different  from  him  in  character, 
as  practical  and  realistic  as  Boethius  was  idealist  and  theoretical. 
All  the  literary  labors  of  Cassiodorius  were  called  forth  by  motives 
and  circumstances  external  to  himself;  by  far  the  greater  part  of  his 
writings  were  meant  to  provide  for  the  pressing   needs   of  his   time 


634  THIRD    PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 

and  generation.  Like  Boethius,  he  was  a  man  of  extensive  erudition, 
and  he  was  similarly  earnest  about  sharing  his  knowledge  with  a 
large  circle  of  his  fellow  citizens.  The  Middle  Ages  were  perhaps 
more  indebted  to  both  these  great  scholars  than  were  their  own 
contemporaries.  Cassiodorius,  or,  as  he  was  called  in  his  own  day, 
Senator,  was  born  at  Scyllacium  in  Bruttium  (Squillace  in  Calabria), 
probably  about  477.  His  family  was  an  ancient  and  honorable  one 
that  for  three  generations  had  administered  the  highest  public  of- 
fices. The  confidence  of  Theodoric  in  the  father  of  Cassiodorius 
was  inherited  by  his  gifted  son.  He  was  scarcely  twenty  when  he 
was  named  questor  and  at  the  same  time  private  secretary  to  the 
king,  in  other  words  home-secretary  for  Italy.  The  usual  honors 
were  rapidly  conferred  upon  him;  in  514  he  was  named  consul.  In 
the  meantime  he  had  displayed  an  unwonted  activity  as  royal  counsel- 
lor; he  was  the  soul  of  the  administration  of  Theodoric.  The  king's 
death  in  526  did  not  diminish  his  loyalty  nor  his  influence.  He  con- 
tinued to  serve  the  Ostrogothic  kingdom  with  devotion  during  the 
regency  of  Amalasuntha;  he  also  held  exalted  positions  during  the 
succeeding  reigns.  About  540  he  bade  adieu  to  the  Ostrogothic 
court,  and  retired  to  the  monastery  of  Vivarium  which  he  had 
founded  from  the  resources  of  his  patrimony.  There  he  gave  him- 
self up  to  the  spiritual  life  and  to  profound  study.  Though  he  had 
passed  his  sixtieth  year  when  he  put  on  the  monastic  habit,  his  new 
calling  was  to  be  far  more  productive  of  results  than  his  political  career. 
He  took  on  himself  the  personal  direction  of  the  monks.  Among 
the  duties  inculcated  by  the  rule  he  placed  not  only  the  exercises 
of  piety  but  the  study  of  the  ecclesiastical  sciences.  It  is  to  his 
personal  example  and  the  model  set  up  by  his  rule,  that  the  Western 
monasteries  owe  their  character  of  refuges  of  learning  amid  the  bar- 
barism of  the  succeeding  epoch.  He  deserves  the  chief  praise  for  the 
preservation  of  both  the  earlier  classical  and  the  Christian  literature 
and  for  the  attitude  of  the  clergy  as  representatives  of  learning. 
Cassiodorius  died  about  570,  in  the  odor  of  sanctity.  —  The  earliest 
of  his  extant  writings  is  a  Chronicle  from  Adam  to  519,  the  year 
of  its  composition.  It  is  not  so  much  a  universal  history  as  a  con- 
sular list  attached  to  an  introduction  reaching  back  to  the  creation 
of  the  world.  Its  materials  are  drawn  from  earlier  chronicles;  from 
496  it  seems  to  be  based  on  personal  knowledge  of  the  author. 
The  work  is  dedicated  to  Eutharic,  son-in-law  of  Theodoric,  husband 
of  Amalasuntha,  and  consul  for  the  West  in  519.  It  was  written 
with  the  avowed  purpose  of  reconciling  the  Roman  population  to 
their  foreign  masters.  The  same  purpose  moved  him  to  compose  a 
more  extensive  and  important  work,  his  History  of  the  Goths:  De 
ongine  actibusque  Getarum,  in  twelve  books;  this  work  was  con- 
tinued, apparently,  to  the  death  of  Theodoric  (526)  and  was  published 


§    115.      BOETHIUS    AND    CASSIODORIUS.  635 

between  526  and  533.  There  is  reason  to  regret  that  the  original 
text  has  perished,  and  that  we  know  it  only  through  the  cursory 
and  unskilful  compendium  made  in  551  by  the  Goth  (Alan)  Jordanis. 
He  wrote  panegyrics  on  the  kings  and  queens  of  the  Ostrogoths, 
but  they  have  perished,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  fragments.  Great 
historical  interest  attaches  to  his:  Variae  (sc.  epistolae),  a  collection 
in  twelve  books  of  the  official  documents  that  issued  from  his  chan- 
cery. It  was  published  between  534  and  538.  The  first  five  books 
contain  rescripts  made  out  in  the  name  of  Theodoric,  the  next  two 
exhibit  formulae  of  nomination  to  various  offices  of  state,  three  others 
present  the  text  of  letters  and  orders  sent  out  in  the  name  of  Atha- 
laric,  Theodahad,  and  Witiges,  while  the  last  two  contain  documents 
issued  in  the  name  of  Cassiodorius  himself  as  praefectus  praetorio. 
This  work  served  as  a  model  to  all  the  early  mediaeval  chanceries; 
their  work  is  formed  upon  its  style.  The  frequent  disquisitions  of 
all  kinds  that  are  met  with  in  these  formulae  lend  a  certain  color 
and  freshness  to  otherwise  dry  and  barren  ordinances ;  they  were 
added,  to  some  extent,  after  the  completion  of  the  collection.  The 
Variae  were  followed  by  the  De  anima,  a  summary  of  very  extensive 
philosophical  reading,  and  showing  in  a  marked  way  the  influence 
of  St.  Augustine  and  Claudianus  Mamertus.  In  this  work  he  gives 
frequent  expression  to  his  preference  for  a  contemplative  existence; 
it  may  be  looked  on,  therefore,  as  the  link  that  binds  his  secular 
career  to  his  religious  life.  —  The  first  work  composed  by  Cassio- 
dorius after  his  retirement  from  the  world  was  also  the  most  con- 
ducive to  the  intellectual  welfare  of  succeeding  ages.  It  was  en- 
titled :  Institutiones  divinarum  et  saecularium  lectionum  (litterarum), 
and  is  divided  into  two  books.  The  first  book  may  be  described  as 
methodology  of  theological  sciences,  it  indicates,  in  the  manner  of  a 
compendium,  the  ecclesiastical  authors  who  are  respectively  the  safest 
guides  in  studies  of  the  kind;  in  these  sciences  the  foremost  place 
is  accorded  to  Biblical  exegesis.  The  second  and  much  shorter 
book,  usually  known  as :  De  artibus  ac  disciplinis  liberalium  litterarum, 
contains  brief  sketches  of  the  seven  liberal  arts:  grammar,  rhetoric, 
dialectics,  arithmetic,  music,  geometry,  and  astronomy.  In  the  intention 
of  the  author,  and  according  to  his  express  statement,  the  entire 
work  was  meant  to  supply  in  some  measure,  and  particularly  for  the 
monks  of  Vivarium,  the  absence  of  a  theological  academy  in  the 
West,  for  the  deficiency  of  which  the  troubled  political  conditions 
were,  of  course,  responsible.  The  institutiones  (begun  about  544) 
became  one  of  the  most  beloved  and  serviceable  manuals  of  the 
mediaeval  student.  Cassiodorius  wrote  also  the  voluminous  Com- 
plexio?ies  in  Psalmos ,  commenced  before  the  work  just  mentioned, 
but  finished  at  a  later  date.  It  is  called  complexiones  =  collective 
explanations,   because  in  this  commentary  the   verses   of  each  Psalm 


536  THIRD    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

are  taken  not  individually,  but  in  groups.  Like  the  Institutiones  it 
became  in  mediaeval  times  a  very  serviceable  ecclesiastical  manual, 
especially  of  exegesis.  Its  material  is  largely  drawn  from  the  Enar- 
rationes  in  Psalmos  of  St.  Augustine,  and  it  emphasizes  strongly 
the  allegorical  or  typical  interpretation  and  the  symbolism  of  numbers. 
The  mediaeval  world  was  quite  unaware  that  he  had  also  written: 
Complexiones  in  epistolas  et  acta  apostolorum  et  apocalypsim.  On 
the  other  hand,  his :  Historia  ecclesiastica  tripartita,  in  twelve  books, 
became  the  ordinary  manual  of  ecclesiastical  history  for  the  entire 
mediaeval  period.  His  share  in  this  work  was  really  secondary:  he 
induced  his  friend  Epiphanius  Scholasticus  to  translate  from  the  Greek 
the  histories  of  Socrates,  Sozomen  and  Theodoret,  which  he  after- 
ward combined  into  a  single  work,  wherein  now  one,  now  another, 
of  these  historians  takes  up  the  narrative  that  is  simultaneously  com- 
pleted from  the  works  of  the  other  two.  The  Historia  tripartita  under- 
takes to  complete  and  continue  the  ecclesiastical  history  of  Eusebius 
as  paraphrased  by  Rufinus ;  but  both  the  translator  and  the  redactor 
performed  their  task  in  a  perfunctory  manner.  Several  other  Latin 
translations  of  Greek  works  were  made  by  Epiphanius  and  other 
scholars,  at  the  instigation  of  Cassiodorius  (§  38,  4;  70,  2;  99,  1). 
His  last  work,  written,  as  he  tells  us  himself,  in  his  ninety-third 
year,  is  entitled:  De  orthographia ;  it  is  a  supplement  to  the  In- 
stitutiones, and  a  loose  and  unsystematic  collection  of  excerpts  from 
earlier  orthographers.  Several  of  his  writings  have  perished,  notably 
a  commentary  on  the  Epistle  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Romans  in  which 
he  refuted  the  errors  of  Pelagius.  He  is  also  credited,  but  erroneously, 
with  a  commentary  on  the  Canticle  of  canticles. 

4.  literature  on  cassiodorius.  —  The  best  complete  edition  of  the 
works  of  Cassiodorius  is  that  by  J.  Garet,  Rouen,  1679  (Venice,  1729), 
2  vols.  A  reprint  of  this  edition  is  found  in  Migne,  PL.,  lxix — lxx,  inclusive 
of  the  discoveries  of  Scipio  Maffei  and  Mai.  The  latest  and  most  reliable 
editions  of  the  Chronica  are  those  by  Th.  Mommsen,  in  Abhandlungen  der 
philol.-histor.  Klasse  der  kgl.  sächs.  Gesellsch.  der  Wissensch. ,  Leipzig, 
1 86 1  ,  iii.  547 — 696,  and  in  Chronica  minora  saec.  iv  v  vi  vii,  vol.  ii 
(Monum.  Germ.  hist.  Auct.  antiquiss.),  Berlin,  1894,  xi.  109— 161.  On 
Mommsen's  edition  of  the  compendium  of  the  History  of  the  Goths  see 
no  5;  his  long-expected  edition  of  the  Variae  appeared  in  Mon.  Germ.  hist. 
Auct.  antiquiss.,  xii  (Berlin,  1894),  with  a  triple  appendix:  I.  Epistulae  Theo- 
dencianae  variae,  ed.  Th.  Mommsen;  II.  Acta  synhodorum  habitarum  Romae 
a  499  501  502,  ed.  Th.  Mommsen;  III.  Cassiodori  orationum  reliquiae, 
ed.  Z.  Traube.  Cf.  B.  Hasenstab,  Studien  zur  Variensammlung  des  Cassio- 
dorius Senator,  part  I  (Progr.),  Munich,  1833.  The  historical  writings  of 
Cassiodorius  are  more  particularly  described  by  W.  Wattenbach,  Deutsch- 
lands Geschichtsquellen  im  Mittelalter  (6.  ed.),  i.  65—72,  and  C.  Cipolla, 
Consideraziom  sulle  «Getica»  di  Jornandes  e  sulle  loro  relazioni  colla 
«historia  Getartim»  di  Cassiodoro  Senatore,  Turin,   1892.    The  «De  anima» 

at  a  l  }eCt,  °f  a  Special  treatise  hy  V>  Durand,  Quid  scripserit  de  anima 
M.  A.  Cassiodorus,  Toulouse,  1851.   The  manuscript-tradition  of  the  second 


§    115.      BOETHIUS    AND    CASSIODORIUS.  637 

book  of  the  Institutiones  is  discussed  by  G.  Laubmann,  in  Sitzungsberichte 
der  kgl.  bayer.  Akad.  der  Wissensch.  zu  München,  philos.-philolog.  and 
hist,  series  (1878),  ii.  71—96.  The  chapter  of  the  second  book  of  the 
Institutiones  devoted  to  rhetoric  was  edited  by  C.  Halm,  Rhetores  latini 
minores,  Leipzig,  1863,  pp.  493—504.  Cf.  Cassiodorii  De  orthographia 
et  De  arte  grammatica  excerpta,  in  IT.  Keil,  Grammatici  latini,  Leipzig, 
1880,  vii.  127 — 216.  The  text  of  the  Complexiones  in  Psalmos  was  emended 
by  Th.  Stangl,  Zu  Cassiodorius  Senator,  in  Sitzungsberichte  der  k.  Akad. 
der  Wissensch.  zu  Wien,  philos.-hist.  series  (1887),  cxiv.  405 — 413.  An 
important  excerpt,  about  a  page  in  length,  from  a  hitherto  unknown  work 
of  Cassiodorius,  and  containing  a  genealogical  conspectus  of  his  family  with 
references  to  his  works  and  those  of  his  relatives  (see  no.  1),  was  dis- 
covered by  A.  Holder,  and  edited  by  H.  Usener,  Anecdoton  Holderi,  Bonn, 
1877.  The  text  (pp.  3 — 4)  of  this  document  is  illustrated  by  an  exhaustive 
commentary  of  Üsener  (pp.  5 — 79).  —  For  the  history  of  Cassiodorius  in 
general  see  A.  Thorbecke,  Cassiodorus  Senator  (Progr.),  Heidelberg,  1867; 
A.  Franz,  M.  A.  Cassiodorius  Senator  (Progr.),  Breslau,  1872;  G.  Minasi, 
M.  A.  Cassiodoro  Senatore,  Naples,  1895.  Other  writings  on  Cassio- 
dorius are  indicated  by  A.  Pott  hast ,  Bibl.  hist.  med.  aevi,  i.  197  f.  See 
also  P.  Godet,  Cassiodore,  in  Diet,  de  Theologie,  ii.  1830-  1834. 

5.  other  historians.  —  We  have  already  mentioned  (no.  3)  the  De 
origine  actibusque  Getarum  of  Jordanis,  who  also  wrote  (551)  De  summa 
temporum  vel  de  origine  actibusque  gentis  Romanorum,  a  compendium  of 
universal  history  compiled  from  such  sources  as  were  then  available.  Jor- 
danis Romana  et  Getica.  Rec.  Th.  Mommsen,  in  Monum.  Germ.  hist.  Auct. 
antiquiss.,  Berlin,  1882,  v.  1;  cf.  W.  Wattenbach,  Deutschlands  Geschichts- 
quellen im  Mittelalter,  6.  ed.,  i.  72 — 79,  also  L.  v.  Ranke,  Weltgeschichte, 
iv  2  (1. — 3.  ed.),  313 — 327.  C.  Cipolla,  Considerazioni  sulle  «Getica»  di 
Jornandes  e  sulle  loro  relazioni  colla  «Historia  Getarum»  di  Cassiodoro 
Senatore,  Turin,  1892.  — Jordanis  made  considerable  use  of  the  Chronicle 
of  the  Illyrian  Marcellinus  Comes,  covering  the  years  379 — 534,  but  chiefly 
devoted  to  the  affairs  of  the  earlier  Empire  (Migne,  PL.,  Ii.  913  ff.).  A 
new  edition  was  brought  out  by  Mommsen,  Chronica  minora  saec.  iv  v 
vi  vii,  (Monum.  Germ.  hist.  Auct.  antiquiss.,  1894,  xi)  ii.  37fr.  Cf.  Teuffel-' 
Schwabe,  Gesch.  der  röm.  Lit.,  5.  ed.,  pp.  1253 — 1254.  —  Victor  of  Tunnuna 
in  Northern  Africa  was  a  Catholic  bishop  who  suffered  much  at  the  hands 
of  Justinian  in  his  defence  of  the  matter  of  the  Three  Chapters ;  he  died 
at  Constantinople  about  569,  probably  in  a  monastery-prison.  Victor  wrote 
a  Chronicle  from  the  creation  to  567;  only  the  latter  portion  of  it  has 
reached  us,  beginning  with  444,  and  dealing  chiefly  with  the  affairs  of  the 
African  Church  (Migne,  PL.,  lxviii.  937  ff.);  edited  anew  by  Mommsen,  1.  c, 
pp.  163  ff.,  cf.  Bahr ,  Die  christl.  Dichter  und  Geschichtschreiber  Roms, 
2.  ed.,  p.  218.  —  John,  Abbot  of  the  monastery  Biclaro  in  the  foot-hills 
of  the  Pyrenees,  a  Spanish  Visigoth,  wrote  a  continuation  of  the  Chronicle 
of  Victor  covering  the  period  from  567  to  590;  his  narrative  is  impartial 
and  ranks  among  the  most  reliable  sources  of  Visigothic  history  (Migne,  PL., 
lxxii.  859  ff.);  a  new  edition  by  Mommsen,  1.  c,  pp.  163  ff . ;  cf.  F.  Gorrcs, 
in  Theol.  Studien  u.  Kritiken  (1895),  lxviii.  103—135.  —  Marius,  bishop  of 
Avenches  (later  of  Lausanne,  f  593),  continued  the  Chronicle  of  Prosper  of 
Aquitaine  (§  95,  3)  from  455  to  581  (Migne,  PL.,  lxxii.  791  ff.);  new  editions 
by  W.  Arndt,  Leipzig,  1875  1878,  and  by  Mommsen,  1.  c. ,  pp.  225  ff . ; 
cf.  Teuffel- Schwabe,  1.  c,  pp.  1255.  —  In  his  De  excidio  Britanniae,  the 
Keltic  writer  Gildas,  surnamed  Sapiens,  drew  (560)  a  gloomy  picture  of 
the  sad  condition  of  Britain  since  its  conquest  by  the  Romans  (Migne,  PL., 
lxix.  327  ff.);  the  latest  edition  is  that  by  Mommsen,  1.  c.  (Monum.  Germ. 


638  THIRD   PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

hist.  Auct.  antiquiss.  xiii,  1898),  iii.  1  ff.  Cf.  A.  de  la  Borderie,  Etudes  histo- 
riques  bretonnes,  I.  series:  L'historien  et  le  prophete  des  Bretons,  Gildas 
et  Merlin,  Paris,  1883.  —  Brief  mention  may  also  be  made  of  certain 
itineraries' to  the  Holy  Land.  To  the  years  520  —  530  belongs  De  situ 
terrae  sanctae  (edited  1865),  written  by  a  certain  Theodosius  Archidiaconus, 
probably  a  native  of  Northern  Africa.  The  little  Breviarius  de  Hiero- 
solyma,  discovered  in  1879,  belongs  probably  to  the  sixth  century.  They 
were  excellently  edited  by  J.  Gildemeister,  Bonn,  1882.  The  Itinera 
Hierosolymitana  edited  by  Pitra ,  Analecta  sacra  et  classica,  Paris,  1888, 
parti,  pp.  118 — 121,  and  attributed  to  a  certain  fifth-century  Vigilius 
(Preface  p.  viii) ,  are  really  a  portion  of  the  work  of  Theodosius  [Gilde- 
meister ,  pp.  15 — 21:  Revue  biblique  x.  93 — 96).  —  About  570  a  certain 
Antoninus  of  Piacenza  made  a  journey  to  the  East  that  was  afterward  nar- 
rated by  an  unknown  companion :  Antonini  Placentini  Itinerarium  {Migne, 
PL.,  lxxii.  899 — 918).  A  separate  edition  with  a  German  version  was  brought 
out  by  y.  Gildemeister,  Berlin,  1889;  cf.  H.  Grisar,  Zur  Palästinareise  des 
sog.  Antoninus  Martyr  um  580,  in  Zeitschr.  f.  kath.  Theol.  (1902),  xxvi. 
760 — 770.  Grisar  holds  that  the  Antoninus  in  question  is  the  holy  patron 
of  Piacenza,  a  third-  or  fourth-century  martyr,  and  that  the  journey  was 
merely  placed  under  his  protection.  The  real  title  of  the  work  should 
therefore  be :  Anonymi  Placentini  Itinerarium ;  cf.  P.  Piacenza,  De  itinerario 
Antonini  Placentini,  in  Ephemerides  liturgicae  (1903),  xvii.  338 — 348  (in 
favor  of  the  traditional  title)  and  (the  reply  of)  Grisar,  in  Civiltä  Cattolica 
(1903),  series  xviii,  vol.  xi.  600 — 609.  H.  Grisar,  in  Zeitschr.  für  kath. 
Theol.  (1903),  xxvii.  776 — 780;  P.  Piacenza,  Iterum  de  Itinerario  Antonini, 
in  Ephem.  Liturgiae  (1903),  xvii.  388 — 609.  L.  Bellanger ,  In  Antonini 
Placentini  itinerarium  grammatica  disquisitio  (These),  Paris,  1902.  For  all 
three  works  cf.  P.  Geyer ,  Itinera  Hierosolymitana  (Corpus  script,  eccles. 
lat.  [1898],  xxxix.   135 — 218).    E.  Levesque,  in  Diet,  de  la  Bible,  i.  713  714. 

§  116.    Writers  in  the  Three  Chapters  controversy. 

I.  FACUNDUS  OF  HERMIANE.  —  Facundus,  bishop  of  Hermiane,  in 
the  African  province  of  Byzacena,  not  only  withstood  the  edict  of 
Justinian  against  the  Three  Chapters  of  the  year  543  or  544  (§102,  3), 
but  wrote  a  voluminous  work  in  twelve  books,  entitled :  Pro  defensione 
trium  capitulorum.  It  was  composed  at  Constantinople  between  546 
and  551,  or  546—548  according  to  Dobroklonskji,  and  presented  to 
the  emperor.  It  is  not  the  Nestorian  doctrine,  condemned  at  Ephesus 
in  431,  that  Facundus  seeks  to  defend,  but  the  authority  of  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon  (451)  which  he  believes  to  be  called  in  question 
by  the  emperor's  edict  against  the  Three  Chapters.  It  is  the  opinion 
of  Facundus,  that  the  latter  document  implies  a  condemnation  of 
the  Fathers  of  Chalcedon  who  uttered  no  censure  against  Theodore 
of  Mopsuestia  and  his  writings  and  formally  received  into  ecclesiastic- 
al communion  both  Theodoret  of  Cyrus  and  Ibas  of  Edessa;  more- 
over, it  is  wrong,  he  says,  to  raise  again  the  question  of  guilt  or  in- 
nocence, once  death  has  supervened  and  removed  the  person  im- 
plicated. In  its  last  session  (June  2.,  553),  the  Council  of  Constan- 
tinople condemned  the  Three  Chapters,  and  after  some  hesitation  this 
action  was  approved  of  by  Pope  Vigilius,  whereupon  Facundus  and 


§  Il6.  WRITERS  IN  THE  THREE  CHAPTERS  CONTROVERSY.      639 

most  of  the  bishops  of  Africa  renounced  the  communion  of  the  Pope 
and  the  Oriental  bishops.  Facundus  remained  obdurate  in  his  re- 
sistance ;  in  reply  to  suggestions  of  a  conciliatory  character  he  com- 
posed (about  571)  two  polemical  treatises:  Liber  contra  Mocianum 
Scholasticum,  and :  Epistola  fidei  catholicae  in  defensione  trium  capi- 
tulorum. 

The  works  of  Facundus  are  in  Migne,  PL.,  lxvii.  527 — 878;  cf.  A.  Do- 
broklonskji,  The  work  of  Facundus,  bishop  of  Hermiane:  «Pro  defensione 
trium  capitulorum»,  Moscow,  1880  (Russian).  —  The  views  of  Facundus 
in  his  first  work ,  concerning  the  edict  of  Justinian ,  were  shared  by  the 
Carthaginian  deacon  Fulgentius  Ferrandus  (§  113,  5),  in  his  Epistola  ad 
Pelagium  et  Anatolium  diaconos  urbis  Romae  {Migne,  PL.,  lxvii.  921  —  928), 
and  by  the  African  bishop  Pontianus,  in  his  Epistola  ad  Justiniannm  imper. 
(Ib.,  lxvii.  995—998). 

2.  POPE  VIGILTUS.  —  The  Three  Chapters  controversy  attained 
an  undue  celebrity  by  reason  of  the  personal  participation  of  Pope 
Vigilius  (537 — 555).  He  was  called  by  the  emperor  to  Constan- 
tinople, and  at  first  condemned  energetically  the  imperial  edict 
against  the  Three  Chapters.  Afterwards  (April  11.,  548)  he  issued 
a  Iudicatum  (extant  only  in  fragments)  in  which  he  condemned  the 
Three  Chapters,  but  added  certain  clausulae  in  order  to  save  the 
authority  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon:  Salva  in  omnibus  reverentia 
synodi  Chalcedonensis.  Nevertheless,  in  his  Constitutum  (May  14., 
553),  Vigilius  professed  the  above-mentioned  ideas  of  Facundus  (see 
no.  1),  and  refused  to  anathematize  the  dead,  or  to  violate  in  any 
degree  the  decisions  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  In  the  meantime 
the  Council  of  Constantinople,  opened  May  5.,  553,  anathematized  in 
its  eighth  and  last  session  (June  2.)  the  Three  Chapters,  a  condem- 
nation to  which  Vigilius  finally  gave  his  assent  in  two  documents,  dated 
Dec.  8.,  553,  and  Febr.  23.,  554.  Vigilius  wrote  also  several  other 
letters  concerning  this  controversy.  Though  Vigilius  was  personally 
convinced  that  the  Three  Chapters  merited  condemnation,  his  at- 
titude with  regard  to  them  was  at  all  times  uncertain,  wavering  and 
yielding  to  external  pressure. 

Epistolae  et  decreta  Vigilii  P.  (Migne  .  PL.,  lxix.  15  ff . ;  also  in  the 
collections  of  the  Councils,  e.  g.  Mansi,  ix ;  cf.  Jafft,  Reg.  Pontif.  Rom., 
2.  ed.  1885,  i.  117 — 124).  J.  Pmikes,  Papst  Vigilius  und  der  Dreikapitel- 
streit, Munich,  1864.  He  feie,  Konziliengeschichte,  2.  ed.,  ii.  798—924.  In 
his  work :  Vigilii  Pontificis  Romani,  Origenis  Adamantii,  Iustiniani  impera- 
toris  triumphus  in  synodo  oecum.  y  (In  S.  Gregorii  Nysseni  et  Origenis 
scripta  et  doctrinam  nova  recensio,  iv),  Rome,  1865,  AI.  Vincenzi  entered 
upon  a  new  line  of  defence  of  the  character  of  Pope  Vigilius.  He  main- 
tained that  many  of  the  contemporary  documents  are  spurious,  notably  the 
Constitutum  Vigilii  Papae,  and  thereby  exculpated  the  latter  from  the 
charges  of  vacillation  and  irresolution.  •  This  line  of  apology  met  with 
criticism;  cf.  J.  Hergenr other ,  in  Theol.  Literaturblatt  (1866),  pp.  543 — 551, 
and  L.  Ducheske,  Vigile  et  Pelage,  in  Revue  des  questions  historiques 
(1884),  xxxvi.  369—440;  (1885),  xxxvii.  579—593-     I*  Uveque,  Etude  sur 


64O  THIRD    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

le  pape  Vigile,  in  Revue  des  sciences  ecclesiastiques ,  Amiens,  1887. 
H.  Grisar,  Geschichte  Roms  und  der  Päpste  im  Mittelalter,  Freiburg,  1901, 
pp.  574  f.",  Id.,  in  Roma  alia  fine  del  mondo  antico,  part  II,  Rome,  1899, 
pp.  248  f.  Cf.  Papa  Vigilio,  in  Civiltä  Cattolica  (1903),  series  xviii,  vol.  xii, 
5 — 26,  and  II  Papa  Vigilio  (537 — 555),  Studio  storico-critico ,  by  Fedele 
Savio,  S.  J.,  Rome,  1904  (Scienza  e  Religione).  —  With  the  exception  of 
St.  Silverius,  the  immediate  predecessors  of  Vigilius  have  left  letters  of 
some  importance:  Epistolae  et  decreta  S.  Felicis  P.  IV.  (526—530;  Mignc, 
PL.,  Ixv.  1 1  ff.),  to  which  must  be  added  the  now  famous  Decretum,  a  very 
important  document  for  the  history  of  papal  elections.  Felix  designates 
therein  as  his  own  successor  the  archdeacon  Boniface,  who  actually  reigned 
as  Boniface  II.  (530 — 532).  This  document  was  made  known  by  Amelli 
in  1882,  and  edited  by  Mommsen ,  in  Neues  Archiv  für  ältere  deutsche 
Geschichtskunde  (1886),  xi.  367;  cf.  ib.  (1885),  412  584,  and  (1886)  367; 
Ewald,  Akten  zum  Schisma  des  Jahres  530.  It  was  edited  anew  by 
A.  Amelli,  in  Spicilegium  Casinense  (1888),  i.  179 — 180.  Duchesne,  La 
succession  du  Pape  Felix  IV,  Rome,  1883.  Bonifatii  P.  II.  Epistolae  (530 
to  532:  Migne,  PL.,  Ixv.  31  ff.);  Ioannis  P.  II.  (532 — 535:  Ib.,  Ixvi.  n  ff); 
S.  Agapiti  P.  I.  (535-536:  Ib.,  Ixvi.  35  ff.) ;  cf.  Jaffe,  1.  c,  pp.  no- 115, 
and  Grisar,  1.  c. 

3.  POPE  PELAGIUS  I.  —  As  archdeacon  of  the  Roman  Church 
Pelagius  composed  at  Constantinople  (554)  a  Refutatorium  of  the 
Council  of  Constantinople,  that  is  extant  in  manuscript  but  has  never 
been  printed.  This  work  was  withdrawn  by  him  after  his  elevation 
to  the  papal  see  (555).  Though  his  reign  was  short  (f  March  3., 
560),  we  possess  a  relatively  large  number  of  his  letters,  most  of 
them  made  known  for  the  first  time  through  the  lately  discovered 
British  Collection  of  papal  letters  (§   114,   1). 

The  discovery  of  an  incomplete  manuscript  of  the  Refutatorium  was 
announced  byZ.  Duchesne,  in  the  Bulletin  critique  (1884),  p.  96;  cf.  S.  Reiter, 
Eine  unedierte  Schrift  des  Pelagius,  in  Serta  Harteliana,  Vienna,  1896, 
pp.  134— 136,  also  the  essay  of  Duchesne  (see  no.  2)  on  Vigilius.  The 
Epistolae  Pelagii  P.  I.  are  in  Migne,  PL.,  lxix.  393  ff,  and  in  Mansi, 
1.  c,  ix.  For  the  recently  discovered  (mostly  short)  letters  see  £  Loewcn- 
feld,  Epistolae  Pontificum  Rom.  ineditae,  Leipzig,  1885,  pp.  12-21 ;  cf.  Jaffe, 
1.  c,  pp.  124—136.  The  history  of  Pelagius  is  discussed  by  H.  Grisar, 
Geschichte  Roms  und  der  Päpste  im  Mittelalter,  Freiburg,  1901,  i.  580  f. 
and  passim.  Mention  is  made  by  Grisar  (pp.  707  —  708)  of  the  Latin  ver- 
sion of  the  »Words  of  the  ancient  Fathers»  (§  102,  2)  made  by  Pelagius 
before  he  became  pope,  in  collaboration  with  the  subdeacon  John  {Migtte, 
PL.,  Ixxni.  851  f.).  J         v     ? 

4-  RUSTICUS.  -—  This  very  stubborn  defender  of  the  Three  Chap- 
ters was  a  deacon  of  the  Roman  Church  and  a  nephew  of  Pope 
Vigilius,  who  felt  obliged  to  excommunicate  and  depose  him  from 
his  office.  In  collaboration  with  Felix,  an  African  abbot,  he  wrote 
at  Constantinople  a  polemical  work  against  the  Council  of  Constan- 
tinople; it  is  known  to  us  only  through  the  mention  vouchsafed  to 
it  by  Victor  of  Tunnunai.     Rusticus  wrote  also  a  wc^rk  against  the 

1  Chron.  ad  a.   553. 


§    Il6.      WRITERS    IN    THE    THREE    CHAPTERS    CONTROVERSY.  64I 

Monophysites :  Contra  Acephalos  disputatio.  It  is  extant,  but  only 
in  part;  it  takes  the  form  of  a  dialogue  between  the  author  and 
a  heretic. 

The  Disputatio  is  in  Migne,  PL.,  lxvii.  1 167— 1254.  For  a  revision  of 
the  Latin  version  of  the  acts  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  undertaken  by 
Rusticus  between  549—550  cf.  Hefele,  Konziliengeschichte,  2.  ed.,  ii.  416  ff. 
Cf.  J.  B.  Pitra,  Spicil.  Solesm.,  Paris,  1858,  iv.  192 — 221 :  Rustici  S.  E.  R. 
diaconi  (forte  et  Verecundi)  scholia,  distinctiones  et  collationes  in  acta 
Concilii  Chalcedonensis.  Pitra  thinks  that  Rusticus  may  have  composed 
these  scholia  in  union  with  Verecundus  of  Junca  (see  no.  5). 

5.  VERECUNDUS  OF  JUNCA.  —  Verecundus  of  Junca,  a  bishop  in 
the  African  province  of  Byzacena,  who  died  in  552  at  Chalcedon, 
was  also  a  determined  opponent  of  the  imperial  edict  against  the  Three 
Chapters.  His  writings  were  first  published  by  Pitra  (1858).  They 
are  a  series  of  extracts  from  the  acts  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon 
(Excerptiones  de  gestis  Chalcedonensis  concilii),  Commentaries  on 
nine  Old  Testament  canticles  (Commentariorum  super  cantica  ec- 
clesiastica  libri  ix),  and  a  Penitential  poem  (De  satisfactione  poeni- 
tentiae)  in  two  hundred  and  twelve  hexameters  (together  with  Meyer's 
appendix),  deeply  Christian  in  sentiment,  but  very  faulty  in  grammar 
and  metre. 

The  writings  of  Verecundus  were  first  edited  by  Pitra,  Spicil.  Solesm., 
Paris,  1858,  iv.  He  published  also  a  second  recension  of  the  Excerptiones 
that  is  evidently  a  compendium  of  the  first  (pp.  166 — 185),  with  some  ad- 
ditions of  the  deacon  Liberatus  (see  no.  6) :  Verecundi  et  Liberati  diaconi 
Carthaginiensis  Excerptiones  e  concilio  Chalcedonensi  (pp.  186 — 191);  see 
also  no.  4.  In  the  Abhandlungen  der  kgl.  bayer.  xAkad.  der  Wissensch., 
I.  Klasse,  Munich,  1885,  xvii  2,  431,  W.  Meyer  published  eight  additional 
verses  of  the  poem  De  satisfactione  poenitentiae  (pp.  138 — 143).  Cf.  Ma- 
nitius,  Gesch.  der  christl.-latein.  Poesie,  Stuttgart,  1891,  pp.  403  ff.  Another 
well-known  poem :  Exhortatio  poenitendi,  attributed  to  Verecundus  by  Pitra 
(pp.  132  — 137),  is  of  more  recent  origin  and  is  only  a  fragment  of  a 
larger  composition;  cf.  Meyer,  1.  c,  pp.  431  ff.,  and  Manitius,  1.  c,  pp.  416  ff. 
The  poem  De  resurrectione  et  iudicio,  attributed  to  Verecundus  by  Isidore 
of  Seville  (De  viris  ill.,  c.  7),  is  probably  identical  with  the:  De  iudicio 
Domini,  or:  De  resurrectione  mortuorum,  printed  with  the  works  of  Ter- 
tullian  and  Cyprian  (§  50,  8).  —  More  recent  in  date  is  the  poem  entitled: 
Crisias,  appended  by  Pitra  (pp.  144 — 165)  to  the  poems  of  Verecundus, 
and  dealing  in  three  books  with  the  appearance  of  Antichrist,  the  general 
judgment,  and  the  resurrection  of  the  dead. 

6.  LIBERATUS.  —  We  owe  to  this  writer  a  not  unimportant  historic- 
al work  dealing  with  the  controversy  of  the  Three  Chapters,  the: 
Breviarium  causae  Nestorianorum  et  Eutychianorum,  a  concise  out- 
line of  the  history  of  Nestorianism  and  Monophysitism  from  the  epi- 
scopal consecration  of  Nestorius  to  the  Council  of  Constantinople 
(428 — 553).  Liberatus  was  a  deacon  of  the  Church  of  Carthage  and 
composed  his  work  between  560  and  566;  it  is  somewhat  prejudiced 
in  favor  of  the  Three  Chapters. 

Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  41 


642  THIRD    PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 

The  text  of  the  Breviarium  is  in  Migne,  PL.,  lxviii.  969—1052.  For 
earlier  editions  cf.  Fessler-Jungmann ,  Instit.  Patr.,  ii  2,  542,  note.  See 
also  no.  5. 

7.  PRIMASIUS  OF  HADRUMETUM.  —  This  writer  also  took  part 
in  the  Three  Chapters  controversy.  He  was  bishop  of  Hadrumetum 
in  the  province  of  Byzacena,  and  left  a  commentary  on  the  Apo- 
calypse, made  up  mostly  of  concise  excerpts  from  earlier  Latin  com- 
mentators. His  work  on  heresies  has  apparently  perished.  A  com- 
mentary on  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  is  erroneously  attributed  to  him. 

For  the  text  of  the  Commentaries  on  the  Pauline  Epistles  and  the  Apo- 
calypse see  Migne,  PL.,  lxviii.  413—936.  Cf.  J.  Haussleiter,  Leben  und 
Werke  des  Bischofs  Primasius  von  Hadrumetum  (Progr.),  Erlangen,  1887, 
and  Id.,  Die  lateinische  Apokalypse  der  alten  Afrikanischen  Kirche,  in 
Th.  Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Gesch.  des  neutestamentl.  Kanons,  Erlangen, 
1891,  iv.  1 — 224.  The  commentary  on  the  Pauline  Epistles  is  an  anti- 
Pelagian  revision  of  the  commentary  of  Pelagius  on  the  same  Epistles,  and 
was  composed  in  Southern  Gaul  about  465 — 500;  cf.  H.  Zimmer,  Pelagius 
in  Irland,  Berlin,  1901,  and  G.  Morin ,  in  Revue  Benedictine  (1903), 
xx.   118. 

8.  JUNILIUS.  —  At  the  urgent  request  of  Primasius  of  Hadru- 
metum (see  no.  7),  Junilius  composed  his  Institnta  regularia  divinae 
legis,  a  work  formerly  known  as  De  partibus  divi?iae  legis,  a  title 
taken  from  the  first  chapter  of  the  first  book.  In  its  actual  shape 
this  work  is  a  methodical  introduction  to  a  profound  study  of  the 
Sacred  Scripture.  The  author  draws  principally  upon  the  teaching 
of  Paul  of  Nisibis;  at  the  same  time  he  reproduces  in  detail  the 
exegetical  principles  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  as  well  as  his  Christo- 
logy  and  his  teaching  concerning  the  biblical  canon.  Junilius  was 
born  in  Africa,  but  was  not  a  bishop,  as  is  usually  asserted ;  he  held 
a  high  official  position  (quaestor  sacri  palatii)  at  Constantinople. 

This  account  of  Junilius  is  based  on  H.  Kihn,  Theodor  von  Mopsuestia 
und  Junilius  Afrikanus  als  Exegeten,  nebst  einer  kritischen  Textausgabe 
von  des  letzteren  «Instituta  regularia  divinae  legis»,  Freiburg,  1880  (the 
text  of  Junilius  appeared  also  in  a  separate  edition,  ib.,  1880).  On  the 
editio  princeps  by  J.  Gastius,  Basel,  1545,  reprinted  in  Migne,  PL.,  lxviii. 
I5— 42>  cf.  Kihn  (1.  c. ,  pp.  229  fr.),  who  also  treats  of  Paul  of  Nisibis 
(pp.  254  ff.).  G.  Mercati,  Per  la  vita  e  gli  scritti  di  Paolo  il  persiano,  in 
Note  di  letterature  biblica  e  cristiana  antica  (Studi  e  Testi,  v),  Rome,  1901, 
pp.  180—206.  Kihn  discusses  (p.  301)  the  commentary  on  the  first  chapter 
of  Genesis  falsely  attributed  to  Junilius.  A.  Rahlfs  contributed  to  the  text- 
criticism  of  the  Instituta,  in  Nachrichten  von  der  kgl.  Gesellschaft  der 
Wissenschaften  zu  Göttingen  (1891),  pp.  242—246.  —  Cresconius,  author 
of  a  Concordia  canonum,  was  very  probably  an  African  bishop.  In  this 
work  the  greater  part  of  the  canons  and  decretals  found  in  both  collections 
of  Dionysius  Exiguus  (§  114,  3)  is  distributed  under  three  hundred  and  one 
rubrics,  but  without  any  apparent  plan  or  order  [Migne,  PL.,  lxxxviii.  829 
to  942).  In  the  preface  to  his  work  Cresconius  mentions  the  Breviatio 
canonum  of  Fulgentius  Ferrandus  (§  113,  5).  Up  to  the  present  the  only 
certain  terminus  ad  quern  for  the  life  of  Cresconius  is  the  earliest  (Verona) 


§  117-   ST.  GREGORY  OF  TOURS  AND  VENANTIUS  FORTUNATUS.   643 

manuscript  of  the  Concordia;  it  belongs  to  the  eighth  century.  Cf.  ßr. 
Maassen,  Geschichte  der  Quellen  und  der  Literatur  des  kanonischen  Rechts, 
Graz,   1870,  i.  806—813. 

§  117.    St.  Gregory  of  Tours  and  Venantius  Fortunatus. 

1.  GREGORY  OF  TOURS.  —  St.  Gregory  of  Tours,  the  historian 
of  the  Franks,  descended  from  a  very  honorable  senatorial  family 
of  Gaul.  He  was  born  probably  Nov.  30.,  538,  in  the  Urbs  Arverna 
(Clermont-Ferrand)  and  was  originally  called  Georgius  Florentius. 
Veneration  for  the  holy  bishop  Gregory  of  Langres  (506/507  to 
539/540),  the  grandfather  of  his  mother  Armentaria,  induced  him, 
at  a  later  period,  to  take  the  name  which  he  was  to  render  famous. 
After  the  early  death  of  his  father  Florentius,  Gregory  was  entrust- 
ed to  his  uncle  St.  Gallus,  bishop  of  Clermont  (546 — 554)  at  whose 
hands  he  received  a  religious  training.  In  those  youthful  days  he 
had  already  resolved  to  enter  the  priestly  state.  After  the  death  of 
St.  Gallus,  he  was  instructed  in  the  Scriptures  by  the  priest  Avitus, 
afterwards  (571 — 594)  bishop  of  Clermont.  In  563  he  fell  dangerous- 
ly ill,  but  was  restored  to  health  on  the  occasion  of  a  pilgrimage 
to  the  tomb  of  St.  Martin  at  Tours.  It  is  possible  that  on  this 
journey  he  began  the  relations  which  were,  ten  years  later,  to  bring 
about  his  election  as  bishop  of  that  city.  He  was  thirty-five  years 
of  age  when  in  573  he  succeeded  his  maternal  relative,  Euphronius 
in  the  see  of  Tours.  Venantius  Fortunatus  celebrated  his  elevation 
in  stately  verse  \  expressive  at  least  of  a  sincere  admiration  for  Gre- 
gory; and  indeed,  the  latter  did  not  deceive  the  expectations  of  his 
poet-friend.  Amid  difficult  circumstances  Gregory  discharged  the  duties 
of  the  pastoral  office  in  a  spirit  of  heroic  self-denial;  we  behold 
him  solicitous  not  only  for  the  spiritual  but  also  for  the  temporal 
welfare  of  his  flock.  Amid  the  frequent  hostilities  of  the  time  with 
prudence  and  energy  he  ever  maintained  the  interests  and  honor  of  the 
city  of  Tours.  The  city  of  St.  Martin  was  then  the  religious  centre 
of  Gaul ;  consequently  the  influence  of  its  bishop  radiated  far  beyond 
the  walls  of  Tours,  and  was  felt  throughout  the  entire  kingdom. 
This  was  made  evident  in  584  when  Chilperic,  against  whose  violent 
measures  he  had  energetically  and  successfully  defended  the  interests 
of  the  Church  and  civilization,  was  assassinated,  and  Tours  came 
(585)  under  the  sceptre  of  Childebert.  Gregory  enjoyed  the  entire 
confidence  of  this  king,  frequently  visited  his  court,  and  acted  more 
than  once  as  his  ambassador  in  affairs  of  political  importance.  When 
he  died  (Nov.  17.,  593  or  594),  he  possessed  the  esteem  of  all  the 
inhabitants  of  Gaul.  —  Notwithstanding  his  very  active  life,  Gregory 
was  an  uncommonly  industrious  and  productive  writer.  It  is  probable 
that  he  entered  on  this  career  only  after  he  was   made  bishop,  and 

1  Carm.  1.  v,   c.   3  :  Ad  cives  Turonicos  de  Gregorio  episcopo. 

41* 


Ö44  THIRD    PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 

that  the  original  impulse  came  from  his  veneration  for  St.  Martin. 
He  was  deeply  conscious  of  his  own  shortcomings  and  began  his 
labors  with  some  hesitation;  he  knew  and  confessed  that  he  was 
lacking  in  grammatical  knowledge,  and  that  his  training  in  the  arts 
of  expression  was  defective.  In  the  preface  to  the  history  of  the 
Franks  he  says  that  he  will  speak:  incultu  (sic)  effatu,  quia  philo- 
sophantem  rhetorem  intellegunt  pauci,  loquentem  rusticum  multi.  In 
the  introduction  to  the  first  book  of  the  same  work  he  bespeaks 
the  forbearance  of  the  reader:  si  aut  in  litteris  aut  in  sillabis  gram- 
maticam  artem  excessero,  de  qua  adplene  non  sum  imbutus.  In  the 
preface  to  the  In  gloria  confessorum  he  admits  that  he  confuses  the 
genders  and  even  the  cases  of  substantives,  and  that  he  is  incapable 
of  properly  applying  the  prepositions :  quas  nobilium  dictatorum  ob- 
servari  sanxit  auctoritas.  Nevertheless  his  diction  is  very  interesting 
and  worthy  of  careful  study,  since  it  brings  before  our  eyes  many 
features  of  the  transformation-process  through  which  the  Latin  gra- 
dually passed  into  the  Romance,  and  particularly  the  French  tongue. 
The  writings  of  Gregory  are  theological  and  historical  in  contents, 
yet  so  that  the  ecclesiastic  is  always  visible  in  the  historian,  while 
his  theological  writings  are  markedly  historical  in  character,  dealing 
as  they  do  with  the  lives  of  the  Saints  and  particularly  of  Frankish 
Saints.  As  an  historian  Gregory  merits  in  a  high  degree  our  respect 
and  confidence.  It  is  true  that  he  often  betrays  remarkable  credu- 
lity and  has  fallen  into  numerous  errors.  The  latter  he  might  have 
avoided,  were  he  less  superficial  and  readier  to  profit  by  the  re- 
sources that  were  accessible  to  him.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  now 
universally  admitted  that  he  manifests  on  all  occasions  an  honest 
willingness  to  state  the  truth  impartially  and  even  critically.  —  Gre- 
gory has  left  us  a  catalogue  of  his  writings1:  Decern  libros  histo- 
riarum,  Septem  miraculorum,  unum  de  vita  patrum  scripsi;  in  psal- 
terii  tractatu  librum  unum  commentatus  sum;  de  cursibus  etiam  ec- 
clesiasticis  unum  libri  condidi.  From  occasional  statements  of  his 
own2  we  gather  that  he  compiled  a  book  from  the  «Masses»  (de 
missis  ab  eo  compositis)  of  Apollinaris  Sidonius,  and  that,  with  the 
help  of  a  Syrian  interpreter  (Siro  quodam  interpretante),  he  trans- 
lated into  Latin  the  Legend  of  the  Seven  Sleepers3;  the  former  of 
which  two  works  has  perished  (§112,  2).  It  is  odd  that  this  trans- 
lation of  the  Passio  ss.  martyrum  septem  dormientium  apud  Ephesum 
should  often  be  set  down  as  a  lost  work,  although  it  was  printed 
as  early  as  1476  by  Mombrizio  (Mombritius).  The  entire  text  of  the: 
De  cursibus  ecclesiasticis  was  discovered  by  Haase  in  a  Bamberg 
manuscript  and  published  in  1853;  until  then  only  some  short  frag- 
ments  of  it  were  known;   the   manuscript-title    of  the   work   is:    De 

1  Mist.  Franc,  x.  31,  ad  fin.  2  jb ^   -     22 

3  In  gloria  martyrum,   c.   94. 


§  117-   ST.  GREGORY  OF  TOURS  AND  VENANTIUS  FORTUNATUS.   645 

cursu  stellarum  ratio  qualiter  ad  officium  implendum  debeat  observari. 
It  is  a  kind  of  liturgical  manual,  composed  after  575  and  before 
582,  and  containing  instructions  for  the  distribution  of  the  ecclesiastic- 
al «officia»  or  «lectiones»  (cursus  ecclesiastici)  according  to  the  po- 
sition, or  more  particularly,  according  to  the  rise  of  the  principal 
constellations.  Only  a  few  sparse  fragments  of  Gregory's  commentary 
on  the  Psalms  have  reached  us.  The :  Septem  libri  miraculorum  are 
not  one  work,  as  the  title  might  imply,  but  as  many  separate  com- 
positions, collected  and  revised  by  Gregory  shortly  before  his  death, 
and  published  as  an  hagiographical  corpus,  together  with  his:  Liber 
de  vita  patrum.  The  work  opens  with:  In  gloria  martyrum,  written 
about  590,  a  narrative  of  the  miracles  of  Christ,  the  Apostles,  and 
various  martyrs  of  the  Church  of  Gaul.  It  is  followed  by  the:  De 
virtutibus  (i.  e.  de  miraculis)  S.  Juliani,  written  between  581  and  587, 
an  account  of  the  miracles  performed  at  the  shrine  of  Brivate  (Brioude) 
by  the  intercession  of  St.  Julian,  a  much  venerated  Gallic  martyr  who 
suffered  about  304  in  the  vicinity  of  Clermont.  The  four  books  De 
virtutibus  S.  Martini  (iii — vi)  are  described  in  the  preface  as  a  me- 
morial for  posterity  of  the  daily  miraculous  intercession  (praesentes 
virtutes)  of  St.  Martin.  According  to  Krusch  the  first  book  was 
composed  before  576,  the  second  not  before  581,  the  third  about 
587;  the  fourth  was  never  finished.  Seventh  among  the  writings  of 
Gregory  is  the:  Liber  vitae  patrum,  acknowledged  to  be  the  most 
interesting  and  important  of  the  works  that  make  up  the  hagiographical 
collection.  It  includes  twenty  lives  of  Saints,  or  rather  twenty-three, 
since  in  each  of  three  lives  two  Saints  are  dealt  with  simultaneously. 
These  lives  were  originally  published  separately;  some  of  them  were 
not  written  before  592.  The  eighth  and  last  book  of  this  corpus, 
In  gloria  confessorum,  contains  brief  accounts  of  miraculous  events; 
it  was  finished  in  587,  but  after  590  underwent  modification  and 
enlargement.  Hagiographical  legends  are  also  the  subject-matter  of  his: 
Liber  de  miraculis  bead  Andreae  apostoli,  and  his:  Liber  de  mira- 
culis beati  Thomae  apostoli,  genuine  works  of  Gregory,  though  not 
claimed  by  him  in  the  list  of  his  writings.  —  Gregory's  reputation 
really  rests  upon  the  ten  books  of  his:  Historia  Francorum.  He  says 
expressly,  in  the  preface,  that  he  writes  the  work  in  order  to  hand 
down  to  future  generations  a  picture  of  his  own  times;  hence,  from 
the  fifth  book  inclusive,  it  assumes  in  a  marked  degree  the  character 
of  personal  memoirs  to  which  the  first  four  books  furnish  a  necessary 
introduction.  The  first  book  furnishes  a  chronological  background 
for  his  narrative:  the  history  of  the  world  from  Adam  to  the  death 
of  St.  Martin  in  397.  In  the  second  book  he  treats  of  Chlodwig 
(Clovis),  the  founder  of  the  Frankish  monarchy.  In  the  third  book 
the  history  of  the  Franks  is  brought  down  to  the  death  of  Theo- 
dobert  I.  (f  548),    in  the  fourth  as  far   as  Sigibert   (f   575);    at   this 


646  THIRD   PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 

point  Gregory  begins  to  be  in  some  measure  a  personal  witness  and 
guarantor  of  the  events  narrated.  These  four  books  were  composed, 
according  to  Arndt,  in  575.  The  next  two  books,  covering  the 
years  575 — 584,  were  written  between  580  and  585.  The  last  four 
books  were  composed  as  opportunity  offered;  they  describe  at  con- 
siderable length  the  events  of  584—585,  and  in  a  more  compendious 
way  the  history  of  the  next  succeeding  years  to  591.  Gregory  him- 
self added  to  and  variously  modified  the  first  six  books  of  his  History 
of  the  Franks.  With  the  fifth  book  began  his  personal  share  and 
interest  in  the  narrative.  Henceforth  he  is  relating  the  history  of 
his  own  period;  his  personal  relations  to  contemporary  history  are 
constantly  in  the  foreground.  He  loves  to  dwell  in  a  diffuse  and 
circumstantial  manner  on  events  and  situations  in  which  he  was  him- 
self concerned.  His  narrative  runs  on  in  a  rather  weak  and  rambling- 
way;  it  is  not  so  much  a  history  as  a  loose  suture  of  unconnected 
occurrences.  There  is  no  attempt  to  understand  or  explain  the  con- 
nexion and  genesis  of  events ;  the  narrator  is  contented  to  reveal  the 
bare  facts  as  he  knows  them.  The  work  is  of  course  alive  with  that 
interest  which  belongs  to  all  that  is  personal  and  individual,  but 
apart  from  this  it  has  always  exercised  a  distinct  and  peculiar  charm. 
Gregory's  simplicity,  naturalness,  and  artless  candor  easily  fascinate 
every  reader  and  cause  him  to  forget  for  the  moment  the  weak  and 
defective  elements  of  the  work.  The  proper  value  of  this  inestimable 
work  arises  from  its  peculiarly  important  subject-matter  and  is  en- 
hanced by  the  utter  inadequateness  of  all  other  historical  authorities 
regarding  the  period  and  peoples  that  it  treats  of.  Von  Giesebrecht 
says  of  the  Historia  Francorum  that  «it  holds  a  distinguished  place 
among  the  most  important  works  of  historical  literature». 

2.  literature  on  Gregory.  —  Until  lately  the  best  edition  of  the 
works  of  Gregory  was  that  of  Th.  Ruinart,  Paris,  1699:  Migne,  PL.,  lxxi. 
It  is  now  surpassed  by  the  edition  of  W.  Arndt  and  Br.  Krusch,  Gregorii 
Turonensis  opera  (Monum.  Germ.  hist.  Script,  rer.  Meroving.  i),  Hannover, 
1884— 1885,  part  I,  1—450:  Historia  Francorum,  ed.  W.  Arndt;  part  II 
(451—881):  Miracula  et  opera  minora,  ed.  Br.  Krusch;  among  the  latter 
opuscula  (821—846):  Gregorii  episc.  Turon.  liber  de  miraculis  b.  Andreae 
apostoli,  ed.  M.  Bonnett  (also  in  a  separate  reprint).  In  this  edition  of 
Gregory  there  are  owing  to  the  special  industry  of  Krusch  an  Index  (884  to 
911),  Orthographica  (912—928),  Lexica  et  grammatica  (929—963).  We 
are  indebted  to  these  editors  for  the  first  successful  attempt  to  reconstruct 
the  original  diction  of  Gregory.  Earlier  editions,  based  on  more  modern 
manuscripts,  exhibited  a  text  corrected  to  resemble  in  some  sense  the  care- 
fully polished  Latin  of  the  Carlovingian  epoch ;  Arndt  and  Krusch  went 
back  to  the  earliest  manuscripts ,  and ,  though  all  of  this  series  are  in- 
complete and  abound  in  gaps  and  breaks,  they  reach  back  as  far  as  the 
seventh  century,  and  are  almost  contemporaneous  with  Gregory  himself; 
in  them  appears  in  all  its  original  crudeness  the  linguistic  barbarism  of 
Merovingian  society.  For  the  manuscript  tradition  of  the  separate  works 
of  Gregory  cf.  Krusch  and  Bonnet,   in  Neues  Archiv   für   ältere    deutsche 


§  il7-   ST.  GREGORY  OF  TOURS  AND  VENANTIUS  FORTUNATUS.   647 

Geschichtskunde  (1886),  xi.  629;  (1887),  xii.  303  —  308  309 — 314;  (1894), 
xix.  25 — 45.  H.  Omont,  Gregoire  de  Tours,  Histoire  des  Francs,  livres 
i — vi.  Texte  du  ms.  de  Corbie,  Bibl.  nat.  ms.  lat.  17655,  avec  un  fac- 
simile', Paris,  1887.  G.  Cotton,  Gregoire  de  Tours,  Histoire  des  Francs, 
livres  vii — x.  Texte  du  ms.  de  Bruxelles,  Paris,  1893.  The  Liber  de 
miraculis  b.  Thomae  apostoli,  lacking  in  the  edition  of  Arndt  and  Krusch, 
was  edited  by  M.  Bonnet,  in  Acta  Thomae  (Suppl.  cod.  apocr.  i),  Leipzig, 
1883,  pp.  96 — 132  (cf.  Praef.,  pp.  xiii  ff.).  Krusch  also  re-edited  the  Passio 
ss.  martyrum  Septem  dormientium  (in  the  edition  of  Arndt  and  Krusch, 
pp.  847 — 853),  in  Analecta  Bollandiana  (1893),  xii.  371 — 387.  Cf.  G.  Oster- 
hase, Bemerkungen  zu  Gregor  von  Tours'  kleineren  Schriften  (Progr.), 
Berlin,  1895.  An  excellent  German  version  of  the  «ten  books  of  Prankish 
history»  was  made  by  W.  v.  Giesebrecht,  Berlin,  185 1,  2  vols.;  2.  ed., 
Leipzig,  1878  (Die  Geschichtsschreiber  der  deutschen  Vorzeit  in  deutscher 
Bearbeitung,  6.  century,  iv — v).  —  For  the  life  and  times  of  Gregory  cf.  J.  W. 
Loebell,  Gregor  von  Tours  und  seine  Zeit,  Leipzig,  1839;  2-  ecU  enlarged, 
with  preface  by  H.  v.  Sybel,  1869.  W.  Wattenbach,  Deutschlands  Geschichts- 
quellen im  Mittelalter,  6.  ed.,  i.  93 — 103.  L.  v.  Ranke,  Weltgeschichte 
(1. — 3.  ed.),  iv  2,  328 — 368.  M.  Bonnet,  Le  Latin  de  Gregoire  de  Tours, 
Paris,  1890.  For  other  works  on  Gregory  of  Tours  cf.  A.  Potthast,  Bibl. 
hist.  med.  aevi,  2.  ed.,  i.  542 — 545.  A  work  of  special  utility  for  the 
Historia  Francorum  is  that  of  J.  Woisin,  Studien  zur  Geschichte  des  4.  u. 
5.  Jahrhunderts,  Meldorf,  1901.  K.  Weimann,  Die  sittlichen  Begriffe  in 
Gregors  von  Tours  Historia  Francorum  (Dissert,  inaug.),    Duisburg,   1900. 

3.  VENANTIUS  FORTUNATUS.  —  Venantius  Honorius  Clementianus 
Fortunatus  was  born  about  530  in  North-Eastern  Italy,  near  Treviso. 
He  was  educated  at  Ravenna,  where  his  early  tastes  inclined  him  to 
the  study  of  grammar,  rhetoric,  and  jurisprudence;  philosophy  and 
theology  had  little  or  no  attraction  for  him.  Poetry,  however,  was 
a  beloved  occupation  of  Venantius,  even  while  still  a  student  at 
Ravenna.  A  disease  of  the  eye,  contracted  there,  was  cured  by 
rubbing  the  ailing  part  with  oil  from  a  lamp  kept  burning  before 
the  image  of  St.  Martin  in  one  of  the  city  churches.  In  gratitude 
for  this  intercession  of  the  Saint,  Fortunatus  undertook  to  visit  his 
tomb  at  Tours  (565).  This  journey,  however,  was  really  more  like 
the  free  wanderings  of  a  poet  than  the  pilgrimage  of  a  pious  peni- 
tent. His  travels  led  him  from  Germany  to  Austrasia,  in  which  land  he 
found  king  Sigibert  occupied  with  the  preparations  for  his  marriage 
to  Brunhilde.  Fortunatus  won  the  king's  favor,  and  acquired  more- 
over the  reputation  of  a  distinguished  poet  by  the  Epithalamium 
which  he  wrote  for  the  wedding  of  the  royal  pair.  After  a  two 
years  sojourn  at  the  court  of  Sigibert,  he  continued  his  journey,  but 
in  no  great  haste.  As  he  went  along ,  he  sought  from  all  persons 
of  standing,  ecclesiastics  or  laymen,  a  hospitality  that  his  polished 
and  agreeable  demeanor  at  once  assured  him;  he  repaid  his  hosts 
with  flattering  panegyrics  in  verse.  He  arrived  finally  at  Tours,  where 
he  received  a  friendly  welcome  from  Euphronius,  the  bishop  of  that 
city.  But  neither  Euphronius  nor  St.  Martin's  tomb  were  able  to  retain 
him  long  at  Tours;    he  soon  took  up   his   staff  and   troubadour-like 


648  THIRD    PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 

travelled  afoot  from  house  to  house,  through  all  Southern  Gaul.  A 
visit  to  Poitiers  brought  his  travels  to  an  end.  There  dwelt  in  this 
city,  in  the  monastery  of  the  Holy  Cross,  two  Thuringian  princesses, 
Radegunde  widow  of  the  Frankish  king  Chlotar  I.  (f  561),  and  her 
adopted  daughter  Agnes.  The  ideal  personalities  of  these  two  holy 
women  wrought  so  powerfully  on  the  sensitive  poet  that  he  aban- 
doned his  travels,  renounced  his  intention  of  returning  to  Italy,  and 
took  up  his  permanent  residence  at  Poitiers.  In  his  friendly,  and 
even  intimate,  relations,  with  Radegunde  and  Agnes  he  found  a  new 
country.  In  deference  to  their  urgent  desire  he  was  ordained  a 
priest  by  the  bishop  of  Poitiers  and  took  on  himself  the  spiritual 
service  of  the  little  community  of  Holy  Cross  nuns.  But  even  here 
he  was  moved  to  vary  his  sojourn  by  occasional  journeys.  His  re- 
lations with  nearly  all  the  prominent  personages  of  Gaul  were  very 
intimate,  particularly  with  Gregory  of  Tours.  Towards  the  end  of 
the  sixth  century,  he  was  chosen  bishop  of  Poitiers.  He  does  not 
seem  to  have  long  survived  this  elevation;  his  death  occurred  early 
in  the  seventh  century.  Venantius  is  no  grave  historian  like  his 
friend  Gregory;  he  is  a  poet  with  all  the  vivacity  and  cheerfulness 
of  his  kind.  He  is  also  possessed  of  eminent  ability  in  his  art;  no 
poet  of  this  decadent  period  can  approach  the  easy  skill  with  which 
he  describes  in  fluent  verse  the  things  and  events  of  daily  life.  On 
the  other  hand,  he,  too,  pays  tribute  to  the  degenerate  taste  of  his 
contemporaries.  In  general  his  diction  is  over-wrought  and  affected. 
His  numerous  panegyrical  poems  exhibit  great  lack  of  dignity,  and 
a  morbid  delight  in  exaggeration.  Most  of  his  minor  poems  have 
reached  us  in  a  collection  made  up  of  eleven  books,  entitled :  Carmina 
or  Miscellanea.  In  its  original  shape  this  collection  was  undoubtedly 
his  own  work.  All  extant  manuscripts,  with  one  exception,  are  re- 
productions of  an  imperfect  copy  of  these  collected  poems.  That 
exception  is  an  eighth-  or  ninth-century  Paris  codex  which  contains 
selections  from  the  complete  collection  and  thirty-one  other  poems 
that  were  lacking  in  the  incomplete  copy  just  mentioned.  Most  of 
the  poetical  effusions  of  Venantius  come  under  the  head  of  oc- 
casional verses.  The  places  visited  by  him,  the  people  who  entertain- 
ed him,  the  banquets  prepared  for  him,  in  a  word  personal  matters 
of  any  kind,  furnished  him  with  more  or  less  successful  themes  for 
the  exercise  of  his  poetic  skill.  Naturally  these  little  carmina  are  a 
very  accurate  mirror  of  the  author  and  his  times.  The  collection 
contains  three  ecclesiastical  hymns,  two  of  which,  the :  Pange  lingua 
gloriosi  (ii.  2),  and  the :  Vexilla  regis  prodeunt  (ii.  6),  are  distinguished 
not  only  for  the  splendor  of  their  new  and  beautiful  imagery,  but  also 
for  the  depth  and  intensity  of  emotion  that  they  manifest.  Several 
other  hymns  attributed  to  Fortunatus,  though  of  doubtful  authenticity, 
have  reached  us,  but  not  in  the  afore-mentioned  way.    Apart  from  the 


§  117-   ST.  GREGORY  OF  TOURS  AND  VENANTIUS  FORTUNATUS.   649 

Passion-hymns,  three  elegies  of  Venantius  composed  at  the  sug- 
gestion, or  to  speak  more  particularly  in  the  name,  ofRadegunde,  are 
highly  praised  as  the  gems  of  his  collection.  Among  them  is  the 
touching  lamentation  for  the  fall  of  the  royal  house  of  Thuringia: 
De  excidio  Thoringiae.  Some  prose-compositions  were  also  included 
in  the  original  collection  of  the  writings  of  Venantius,  besides  letters 
e.  g.  a  diffuse  exposition  of  the  Pater  Noster  (x.  i)  and  an  exposition 
of  the  Apostles'  Creed  (xi.  i),  the  latter  a  neatly-executed  abbrevia- 
tion of  the  well-known  work  of  Rufinus  (§  92,  3).  Independently 
of  the  collected  writings  of  our  poet,  a  long  epic  poem:  De  vita 
S.  Martini,  has  come  down,  in  four  books  (two  thousand  two  hundred 
and  forty- three  hexameters).  A  prefatory  letter,  addressed  to  Gre- 
gory of  Tours,  says  that  it  was  finished  within  two  months:  inter 
bimestre  spatium.  In  reality  it  is  only  a  metrical  abbreviation  of  the 
writings  of  Sulpicius  Severus  on  St.  Martin  (Vita  S.  Martini  and 
Dialogues,  §  92,  1).  The  corresponding  work  of  Paulinus  of  Petri- 
cordia  (§.  112,  3)  was  also  put  to  good  use  by  Venantius.  In  this 
work  Germanus,  bishop  of  Paris  (f  May  8.,  576),  is  mentioned  as 
still  alive  (iv.  636) ;  Venantius  must,  therefore,  have  composed  his 
epic  before  that  date.  He  wrote  also  some  lives  of  the  Saints  in 
prose,  for  popular  edification  and  in  comparatively  simple  style.  Other 
such  biographies  are  erroneously  attributed  to  him.  The  following 
are  considered  genuine:  a  life  of  St.  Hilary  of  Poitiers  with  the: 
Liber  de  virtutibus  (i.  e.  miraculis)  S.  Hilarii,  lives  of  St.  Marcellus, 
bishop  of  Paris  (f  436),  of  St.  Albinus,  bishop  of  Angers  (f  560), 
of  St.  Paternus,  bishop  of  Avranches  (f  563),  of  the  afore-mentioned 
St.  Germanus  of  Paris,  and  a  life  of  St.  Radegunde  (f  587). 

4.  literature  on  fortunatus.  —  The  best  of  the  earlier  editions  of 
Fortunatus  is  admittedly  that  of  the  Benedictine  M.  A.  Luchi,  Rome,  1786 
to  1787,  2  vols.  {Migne,  PL.,  Ixxxviii,  inclusive  of  the  carmina  since  dis- 
covered). The  latest  and  best  edition  is  that  of  Leo  and  Krusch'.  V.  H. 
CI.  Fortunati  opera  poetica,  rec.  et  emend.  F.  Leo;  opera  pedestria,  rec. 
et  emend.  Br.  Krusch,  Berlin,  1881 — 1885  (Monum.  Germ.  hist.  Auct. 
antiquiss.  iv).  Leo  was  the  first  to  establish  a  reliable  text  of  the  carmina, 
based  on  many  manuscripts ;  in  his  edition  the  diction  and  metre  of  For- 
tunatus are  learnedly  discussed.  Ch.  Nisard  maintains,  in  Revue  historique 
(1888),  xxxvii.  49—57,  (1889),  xli.  241—252,  that  the  two  elegies:  De  ex- 
cidio Thoringiae  and  Ad  Artachin,  were  written  by  Radegunde  herself; 
cf.  IV.  Lippert,  in  Zeitschrift  des  Vereins  für  thüringische  Geschichte  und 
Altertumskunde  (1890),  new  series,  vii.  16 — 38  (against  Nisard).  On  the 
hymns  of  Fortunatus  see  J.  Kaiser ,  Beiträge  zur  Gesch.  und  Erklärung 
der  Kirchenhymnen,  2.  ed.,  Paderborn,  1881,  pp.  386—434  and  477.  On 
the  Vita  S.  Hilarii  and  Liber  de  virtutibus  S.  Hilarii  see  J.  H.  Reinkens, 
Hilarius  von  Poitiers,  Schaffhausen,  1864,  pp.  xvi — xxii.  —  The  life  and 
writings  of  Fortunatus  are  treated  of  at  length  by  F.  Hamelin,  De  vita  et 
operibus  V.  H.  CI.  Fortunati,  Pictaviensis  episcopi,  Rennes,  1873.  A.Schnei- 
der ,  Lesefrüchte  aus  Venantius  Fortunatus,  Innsbruck,  1882.  Fr.  Leo, 
Venantius   Fortunatus,    in    Deutsche    Rundschau  (1882),    xxxii.    414 — 426. 


650  THIRD    PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 

Ch  Nisard,  Le  poete  Fortunat,  Paris,  1890.  W.  Meyer,  Der  Gelegenheits- 
dichter Venantius  Fortunatus,  Berlin,  1901 ,  in  Abhandlungen  der  kgl. 
Gesellsch.  der  Wissensch.  zu  Göttingen.  This  dissertation  contains  im- 
portant considerations  concerning  the  dates,  nature  and  occasions  of  the 
Carmina.  J.  Dostal,  Über  Identität  und  Zeit  von  Personen  bei  Venantius 
Fortunatus  (Progr.),  Vienna,  1901.  G.  Semeria,  GH  inni  della  Chiesa; 
viii:  l'inno  della  Croce,  Milan,  1903.  —  St.  Germanus  of  Paris,  whose  life 
was  written  by  Fortunatus,  is  said  to  be  the  author  of  an  Epistola  ad 
Brunichildem  reginam,  a  Privilegium  monasterii  S.  Germani,  and  an  Ex- 
positio  brevis  antiquae  liturgiae  gallicanae  [Migne,  PL.,  lxxii.  77—98).  The 
Epistola  is  certainly  genuine;  cf.  W.  Gundlach ,  in  Monum.  Germ.  hist. 
Epistolae  (1892),  iii.  122—124.  For  the  spurious  Expositio  liturgiae  see 
H.  Koch,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1900),  lxxxii.  525  ff.  —  Nicetius,  bishop 
of  Trier  (f  ca.  566)  and  friend  of  Fortunatus,  left  two  epistolae:  Ad  Chlodos- 
vindam  reginam  Longobardorum,  and  Ad  Justinianum  imper.  [Migne,  PL., 
lxviii.  375—380,  also  in  Gundlach,  1.  c,  pp.  118— 122).  For  the  treatises 
De  vigiliis  servorum  Dei  and  De  psalmodiae  bono  [Migne,  1.  c,  356—376) 
see  §  90,  12.  —  Of  Ferreolus,  bishop  of  Uzes  (Depart.  Gard),  who  died  in 
581,  Gregory  of  Tours  writes  (Hist.  Franc,  vi.  7):  Libros  aliquot  epistola- 
rum  quasi  Sidonium  (§112,  2)  secutus  composuit.  He  wrote  also  a  Regula 
ad  monachos  [Migne,  PL.,  lxvi.  959—976).  —  Some  homilies  are  current 
(Ib.,  lxxii.  771 — 774)  under  the  name  of  Sedatus,  bishop  of  Biterrae  (Beziers). 
He  died  about  589. 

§  118.    Pope  St.  Gregory  the  Great. 

I .  HIS  LIFE.  —  Gregory  I. ,  one  of  the  greatest  successors  of 
St.  Peter,  meets  us  at  the  end  of  the  ancient  life  and  order,  or 
rather,  on  the  threshold  of  the  Middle  Ages.  With  the  exception 
of  Leo  I.  none  of  the  ancient  popes  affected  so  profoundly  and  in 
so  many  new  ways  the  ecclesiastical  and  civil  conditions  of  his  time. 
Gregory  was  born  at  Rome,  probably  in  540,  and  descended  from 
a  family  at  once  noble  and  rich.  As  son  of  a  patrician  house  he 
adopted  a  public  career  and  became  pretor  at  an  early  age,  certainly 
before  571.  The  glory  of  life  and  worldly  grandeur  seem  to  have 
fascinated  him  for  a  while.  From  his  youth,  however,  he  had  cherish- 
ed the  idea  of  devoting  himself  entirely  and  solely  to  the  service 
of  God.  After  much  hesitation  he  followed  this  impulse  of  divine 
grace,  abandoned  his  earthly  pursuits,  and  sold  his  inheritance,  gave 
to  the  poor  a  portion  of  the  money,  and  with  the  rest  built  seven 
monasteries,  six  in  Sicily  and  one  at  Rome  in  his  own  palace  on 
the  Hill  of  Scaurus  (Monte  Celio).  He  became  a  monk  in  the  latter 
monastery,  and  observed  the  rule  of  St.  Benedict  with  so  much 
exactness  that  he  ruined  his  health,  never  very  robust,  and  was 
near  dying.  At  the  end  of  his  life  he  still  recalled  with  regret  these 
golden  days  of  monastic  peace.  Pope  Benedict  I.  drew  him  from 
this  quiet  haven  and  made  him  a  cardinal-deacon  or  regionarius, 
and  Pelagius  II.,  his  successor,  sent  him  as  apocrisiarius  or  nuncio 
to  the  emperor  Tiberius  at  Constantinople.  In  584  or  585  he  re- 
entered his  monastery,   and   was  soon  chosen  to  be  its  abbot.     The 


§  1 1 8.   POPE  ST.  GREGORY  THE  GREAT.  6$  I 

sight  of  some  Anglo-Saxon  youths  in  the  slave  market  of  Rome 
awoke  in  Gregory  the  desire  to  go  to  England  and  become  the  mis- 
sionary of  Christianity  and  civilization  to  that  people.  With  the  good 
will  of  Pope  Pelagius  he  left  the  city  secretly,  and  began  his  journey, 
but  the  Roman  people  compelled  the  pope  to  recall  their  benefactor 
and  their  idol.  Pelagius  died  Feb.  7.,  590,  and  Gregory  was  at  once 
elected  to  succeed  him,  by  the  unanimous  vote  of  senate,  clergy,  and 
people.  He  made  every  effort  to  escape  the  burden  of  the  papacy, 
but  in  vain.  On  the  receipt  from  Constantinople  of  his  confirmation 
by  the  emperor  Maurice,  he  was  accompanied  to  St.  Peter's  as  in 
a  triumphant  procession  by  all  the  people  of  Rome,  and  consecrated 
Sept.  3.,  590.  He  tells  us  himself1  that  he  assumed  the  direction 
of  the  Church,  when  it  resembled  an  old  ship,  flooded  on  all  sides  by 
the  waves,  and  the  timbers  of  which,  battered  by  unceasing  storms, 
proclaimed  only  too  loudly  that  the  vessel  was  on  the  verge  of 
shipwreck.  Italy  was  visited  by  inundations,  pestilence  and  famine; 
the  Lombards  were  everywhere  burning  and  slaughtering;  the  ec- 
clesiastical province  of  Milan  was  still  in  a  state  of  schism  because 
of  the  condemnation  of  the  Three  Chapters ;  the  Greek  schism,  reserved 
for  later  days,  was  already  casting  a  menacing  shadow;  civil  order 
seemed  everywhere  shaken  to  its  foundations.  By  a  union  of  gentle- 
ness and  resolution  Gregory  succeeded  in  quieting  somewhat  this 
universal  disorder.  Few  great  men  in  Church  or  State  ever  com- 
bined in  so  high  a  degree  as  Gregory  an  affectionate  and  pleasing 
deference,  towards  the  civil  authority,  with  firmness  of  purpose  and 
energy  of  execution;  perhaps  no  pope  ever  conceived  so  adequate 
an  idea  of  his  high  office  or  realized  it  with  such  breadth  and  ful- 
ness. When  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople  proudly  assumes  the  title 
of  ecumenical  bishop  (§  106,  2),  Gregory  takes  that  of  servus  servo- 
rum  Dei.  His  own  interests  do  not  concern  him,  and  consequently 
he  won  all  men  over  to  the  interests  of  God.  In  the  twelve  years 
of  his  pontificate  he  succeeded  in  uplifting  the  fallen  ecclesiastical 
state,  in  relieving  much  social  suffering,  and  in  bettering  the  con- 
ditions of  a  great  part  of  mankind.  He  laid  the  foundations  of  the 
mediaeval  Church  and  of  the  political  power  of  the  papacy.  Gregory 
believed,  in  as  far  as  such  belief  was  compatible  with  his  persuasion 
of  the  near  end  of  the  world,  that  the  future  belonged  to  the  Teu- 
tonic peoples.  He  aided  them  to  establish  a  new  political  order 
amid  the  surrounding  chaos.  Clausier  says  rightly  that  Gregory  and 
the  Middle  Ages  were  born  on  the  same  day.  The  holy  pontiff,  it 
seems,  prized  above  all  other  triumphs  the  success  of  Augustine  and 
his  companions,  whose  mission  to  England  he  had  conceived  and 
organized.     In  the  last  years  of  his  life   he   was   sorely   afflicted    by 

1  Registrum  ep.,  i.  4. 


652  THIRD    PERIOD.       THIRD    SECTION. 

sickness,    and  could  rise  from    his   bed   only   to   assist   at   the   more 
solemn  ecclesiastical  festivals.     He  died  early  in  March,  604. 

2.  WRITINGS  OF  GREGORY.  —  The  Registrant  epistolarum,  or 
collection  of  his  official  letters,  is  at  once  an  eloquent  monument  of 
his  spirit  and  a  reliable  mirror  of  his  pontifical  zeal  and  energy.  This 
important  work,  according  to  the  researches  of  Ewald,  has  reached 
us  only  in  fragments.  The  original  Letter-Book  of  Gregory  is  lost, 
and  is  now  known  to  us  only  in  three  ancient  compendia,  each  of 
which  however  arose  independently  of  the  others.  The  longest  of 
these  compendia,  which  alone  merits  the  name  of  Registrum,  was 
compiled  under  Hadrian  I.  (772 — 795)  for  Charlemagne.  It  contains 
six  hundred  and  eighty-six  or  (three  letters  being  repeated)  six  hundred 
and  eighty-three  letters.  It  is  arranged  chronologically  according  to 
the  indictions,  and  includes  the  entire  pontificate  of  Gregory.  The 
second  collection  includes  two  hundred  letters,  all  of  them  probably 
dating  from  the  second  indiction  (598 — 599).  The  third  collection 
varies  in  extent :  it  includes,  as  a  rule,  fifty-one  letters ;  in  some  manu- 
scripts more  are  given ;  they  are  all  taken  from  three  non-consecutive 
indictions  (xiii  iv  x).  The  latter  two  collections  are  probably  older 
than  the  first.  As  they  contain  one  hundred  and  sixty-five  letters 
that  are  lacking  in  the  first,  the  total  number  of  Gregory's  letters 
is  eight  hundred  and  forty-eight.  Some  other  letters  have  reached 
us,  by  different  channels,  but  their  authenticity  is  doubtful.  The 
famous  and  much-controverted  Answer  of  Gregory  to  certain  ques- 
tions of  Augustine,  bishop  of  Canterbury1,  known  only  through 
Beda's  reference  to  it2,  is  now  generally  considered  spurious.  While 
the  Letter-Book  of  Gregory  throws  a  strong  light  upon  his  tireless 
pastoral  zeal,  it  also  reveals  in  him  the  great  qualities  of  a  statesman 
and  an  administrator.  The  most  minute  details  engage  his  attention ; 
his  vigilant  eye  rests  with  earnest  affection  on  the  remotest  corners 
of  the  known  world.  The  model  of  a  perfect  shepherd  of  souls 
that  these  letters  exhibit  in  practical  life,  is  put  before  us  from  a 
theoretical  standpoint  in  Gregory's  famous  Liber  regulae  pastoralis, 
written  about  591  and  dedicated  to  John,  archbishop  of  Ravenna. 
The  latter  had  reproached  Gregory  with  his  attempted  flight  on  the 
eve  of  his  election  to  the  papacy,  an  act  that  Gregory  undertakes 
to  justify,  after  the  manner  of  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  (§  68,  4)  and 
Chrysostom  (§  74,  8),  by  explaining  the  sublimity  and  difficulty  of 
the  ecclesiastical  office.  In  the  preface  to  the  first  section  of  this 
book  he  describes  the  requisites  for  the  pastoral  office  (ad  culmen 
quisque  regiminis  qualiter  veniat);  in  the  second  section  the  manner 
of  life  incumbent  on  the  shepherd  of  souls  (ad  hoc  rite  perveniens 
qualiter  vivat);  in  the  third  section,  at  once  longer  and  more  important 
than    the    others,    the    character    and    manner    of   pastoral    teaching 

1  Registrum  ep.,  xi.  4.  2  Hist>  ecd>  ggnt>  Angl^  .    ^ 


§  Il8.   POPE  ST.  GREGORY  THE  GREAT.  653 

(bene  vivens  qualiter  doceat);  the  fourth  and  last  section,  consisting 
of  only  one  chapter,  reminds  the  ecclesiastical  shepherd  that  he 
should  practise  daily  the  habit  of  self-recollection  (recte  docens  in- 
firmitatem  suam  quotidie  quanta  consideratione  cognoscat).  This  work 
of  Gregory  met  with  universal  approval ;  it  was  translated  into  Greek 
by  Anastasius  IL,  patriarch  of  Antioch  (§  107,  1),  and  into  Anglo- 
Saxon  by  king  Alfred  of  England  (f  901).  Gregory  also  wrote  (593) 
in  four  books  a  work  entitled  Dialogi  with  the  sub-title  (in  many 
manuscripts) :  de  vita  et  miraculis  patrum  Italicorum  et  de  aeternitate 
animarum.  Worn  out  with  worldly  cares,  the  pope  had  withdrawn 
to  a  lonely  place  where  he  gave  vent  to  the  unhappiness  he  felt  at 
not  being  able  to  devote  himself  to  the  salvation  of  his  soul  in 
monastic  peace  and  retirement.  In  his  solitude  he  is  visited  by  the 
deacon  Peter,  a  friend  of  his  youth,  to  whom  he  makes  known  the 
secret  cause  of  his  melancholy,  by  recalling  the  example  of  many 
holy  men  in  former  times  who  had  abandoned  all  earthly  concerns 
and  sought  thenceforth  only  the  perfection  of  their  spiritual  life. 
Peter  professes  ignorance  of  the  fact  that  there  had  lived  in  Italy 
so  many  holy  men  through  whom  God  had  performed  miracles;  at 
his  request  Gregory  undertakes  to  relate  something  of  their  lives  and 
miraculous  deeds,  partly  from  his  personal  recollections,  partly  from  the 
evidence  of  trustworthy  witnesses.  The  first  and  third  book  introduce 
to  us  a  number  of  saintly  Italians  endowed  with  miraculous  powers,  all 
of  them  otherwise  unknown  to  us,  apart  from  a  few  distinguished  per- 
sons like  Paulinus  of  Nola  (iii.  1).  The  whole  of  the  second  book  is 
devoted  to  the  miracles  of  St.  Benedict  of  Nursia.  In  the  fourth  book, 
Gregory  dwells  with  pleasure  on  those  miracles  that  prove  the  survival 
of  the  soul  after  death.  This  work,  so  thoroughly  characterized  by 
the  contemporary  faith  in  the  miraculous,  was  transcribed  and  trans- 
lated with  such  rapidity  that  it  was  soon  a  household  book  in  all 
parts  of  the  Christian  world.  A  work  of  far  greater  importance  is 
his  voluminous:  Expositio  in  librum  Job  sive  Moralium  libri  xxxv, 
begun  by  Gregory  while  he  was  legate  at  Constantinople,  but  not 
finished  until  after  his  election  to  the  papacy.  In  the  dedicatory 
epistle  to  Leander,  archbishop  of  Seville,  the  author  says  that  he 
will  expound  the  Book  of  Job  in  a  triple  sense:  the  historical, 
allegorical,  and  moral.  He  is  all  too  brief  and  sparing  in  the  historic- 
al elucidation  of  the  text,  though  the  deeper  speculative  or  con- 
templative sense  is  treated  with  some  fulness.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  practical  application  of  the  text  of  Job  is  carried  out  so  ex- 
haustively that  this  work  was  recognized  at  once  as  a  thesaurus  of 
moral  theology.  Several  other  exegetical  works  attributed  to  Gregory 
are  either  of  dubious  provenance  or  are  certainly  spurious :  Commen- 
tarii  in  librum  I  Regum,  Expositio  super  Cantica  canticorum,  Expositio 
in  septem  Psalmos   poenitentiales,   Concordia  quorumdam  testimonio- 


654 


THIRD    PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 


rum  S.  Scripturae.  The:  Homiliae  xl  in  Evangelia  are  probably  his 
sermons  on  the  Gospels  for  the  Sundays  and  holidays  during  590—591 ; 
twenty  of  them  were  dictated  by  Gregory  to  a  notary  and  read  by 
the  latter  to  the  assembled  people.  The  other  twenty  were  deliver- 
ed by  him  in  the  churches  of  Rome  and  taken  down  by  tachy- 
graphers.  They  were  soon  published  against  his  will  by  admirers 
of  Gregory,  whereupon  the  pope  made  a  new  collection  of  these 
homilies  (592  or  593)  in  two  books.  To  this  edition  of  the  40  ho- 
milies is  usually  added  a  powerful  penitential  discourse  of  Gregory 
delivered  during  the  pestilence  of  590.  The:  Homiliae  xxii  in  Eze- 
chielem,  preached  in  the  autumn  of  593,  are  also  divided  into  two 
books,  the  first  of  which  (Horn,  i — xii)  deals  with  Ezechiel  i — iv,  and 
the  second  (xiii — xxii)  with  Ezechiel  xl.  There  breathes  in  all  these 
homilies  an  affectionate  and  fatherly  spirit;  the  diction  is  at  once 
simple  and  vigorous.  Biblical  texts  are  interpreted  in  an  allegorical 
sense.  His  homilies  on  the  Gospels  furnished  favorite  reading  matter 
for  the  liturgy,  as  well  for  the  mediaeval  monks  both  in  chapter  and 
in  refectory.  The  so-called  Sacramentarium  Gregorianum  is  attributed 
by  Duchesne  (1889)  to  Hadrian  I. ,  and  renamed:  Sacramentarium 
Hadriani.  Probst  contends  (1892)  that  it  rightly  bears  the  name  of 
Gregory,  having  been  re-arranged  and  completed  by  him.  It  is  certain 
that  the  Sacramentarium  of  the  Roman  Church  underwent  a  thorough 
reform  at  the  hands  of  Gregory.  If  now  we  admit  that  the  Sacra- 
mentarium Gelasianum  belongs  to  an  earlier  period  (§  114,  1),  and 
is  in  no  sense  a  Gregorian  compilation,  it  follows  that  we  must  re- 
cognize in  the  Sacramentarium  Gregorianum  the  outcome  of  Gregory's 
liturgical  reforms.  There  is  also  no  reason  for  abandoning  the  venerable 
traditions  that  assign  to  Gregory  the  permanent  laws  and  arrange- 
ment of  the  liturgical  melodies  as  sung  in  the  public  or  choral  ser- 
vice (Cantus  Gregorianus)  of  the  Church.  Quite  recently  Gevaert  and 
others  have  questioned  the  accuracy  of  these  traditions  which  have 
been  defended  by  Dom  Morin  and  others.  The  eight  hymns  attribut- 
ed to  Gregory  are  certainly  spurious. 

3.  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  GREGORY'S  WRITINGS.  — Gregory  is  par- 
ticularly great  and  deserving  of  all  praise  in  the  province  of  practic- 
al ecclesiastical  life  and  administration.  His  writings  are  throughout 
eminently  practical,  and  make  no  pretence  to  artistic  disposition 
of  material,  or  elegance  of  expression.  The  age  of  Gregory  was 
marked  by  a  profound  intellectual  decadence  and  collapse.  The 
large  and  free  play  of  mind,  the  vigorous  creative  power  of  a  former 
age  are  henceforth  no  more  than  memories;  it  is  enough  if  men  can 
rescue  from  encroaching  barbarism  the  intellectual  treasures  of  a  by- 
gone period.  Gregory  is  not  called  on  to  discover  and  refute  new 
subtleties  of  heresy;  his  duty  is  to  revive  the  sinking  courage  of 
humanity,   to  withstand  the  pressure  of  despair  upon   the   hearts    of 


§    1 1 8.      POPE    ST.    GREGORY    THE    GREAT.  655 

the  conquered  Romans  and  to  temper  the  ignorant  arrogance  of  the 
conquerors.  It  is  no  longer  the  teaching  office,  but  the  healing, 
helping  and  saving  ministry  of  the  Christian  shepherd  that  is  in  de- 
mand. There  was  scarcely  any  one  who  could  better  understand  the 
wounded  hearts  of  men,  who  could  explain  more  exactly  their  infirmities 
and  wants,  who  could  point  out  more  clearly  and  more  fervently  the 
right  remedies,  than  Gregory.  The  writings  of  Gregory  contain  little 
or  nothing  that  is  characteristic  in  the  province  of  Christian  doc- 
trine; his  intimate  conviction  of  the.  imminent  end  of  the  world  was 
shared  by  many  Christians  of  his  time.  The  new  and  strange  dis- 
orders of  nature  and  the  continuous  horrors  of  the  wars  of  the  sixth 
century  seemed  like  so  many  heralds  of  the  last  judgment.  Gregory 
writes:  Depopulatae  urbes,  eversa  castra,  concrematae  ecclesiae,  de- 
structa  sunt  monasteria  virorum  ac  feminarum,  desolata  ab  hominibus 
praedia  atque  ab  omni  cultore  destituta,  in  solitudine  vacat  terra, 
nullus  hanc  possessor  inhabitat,  occupaverunt  bestiae  loca  quae  prius 
multitudo  hominum  tenebat.  Et  quid  in  aliis  mundi  partibus  agatur 
ignoro.  Nam  in  hac  terra  in  qua  nos  vivimus  flnem  suum  mundus 
iam  non  nuntiat,  sed  ostendit1.  Ecce  iam  mundus  in  se  ipso  aruit .  .  . 
ubique  mors,  ubique  luctus,  ubique  desolatio  .  .  .  finis  temporalium 
ostendit  quam  nihil  sit  quod  transire  potuit,  casus  rerum  indicat  quia 
res  transiens  et  tunc  prope  nihil  fuit  cum  stare  videretur2. 

4.    COMPLETE    AND    PARTIAL    EDITIONS.      TRANSLATIONS.       RECENSIONS.    

Complete  editions  of  the  works  of  Gregory  were  published  by  bishop  Petrus 
Tossianensis  of  Venusi  (Venosa),  Rome,  1588 — 1593,  6  vols.;  by  P.  Goussain- 
ville  (Gussanvillaeus),  Paris,  1675,  3  vols.,  and  by  the  Maurists,  Paris,  1705, 
4  vols.;  the  last  edition  was  reprinted  at  Venice,  1744.  Another  edition 
appeared  at  Venice,  1768 — 1776,  in  17  vols.,  with  some  improvements  and 
additions,  by  J.  B.  Gallicioli  (Afigne,  PL.,  lxxv  — lxxix).  The  Maurist  edition 
of  St.  Gregory  does  not  rank  among  the  best  labors  of  the  Benedictines ; 
Sainte  Marthe  (Sammarthamis)  to  whom  we  owe  this  edition,  was  no  Ma- 
billon.  —  P.  Ewald  began,  and  after  his  death  L.  M.  Hartmann  com- 
pleted, a  new  edition  of  the  Registrum  Epistolarum  that  will  long  remain 
the  authoritative  text :  Gregorii  I.  Papae  Registrum  epistolarum,  i — ii,  Berlin, 
1 89 1 — 1899  (Monum.  Germ.  hist.  Epist.  i — ii).  We  owe  to  Ewald  also 
the  letters  of  Gregory  as  arranged  in  Jafft,  Regesta  Pontif.  Rom.  (1885), 
2.  ed.,  i.  143 — 219.  N.  Turchi  edited:  Sancti  Gregorii  Magni  Epistolae 
Selectae,  Rome,  1907,  vol.  i,  pars  I,  Series  vii,  of  the  Bibliotheca  Sancto- 
rum Patrum.  For  other  works  concerning  the  correspondence  of  Gre- 
gory I.  see  A.  Potthast ,  Bibl.  Hist.  med.  aevi,  2.  ed.,  i.  539  f.  For 
the  Responsa  of  Gregory  to  the  questions  of  the  bishop  Augustine  of 
Canterbury  (Registr.  xi.  64)  cf.  L.  Duchesne ,  Origines  du  culte  chre'tien, 
Paris,  1889,  pp.  93 — 94,  also  the  English  translation,  London,  1904;  Säg- 
midier,  in  Theol.  Quartalschr.  (1899),  lxxxi.  160.  T/i.  Kranzfelder  trans- 
lated into  German  select  letters  of  Gregory,  Kempten,  1874  (Bibliothek 
der  Kirchenväter).  The  Regula  pastoralis  has  often  been  re-edited  and 
reprinted,  e.  g.  by  E.  W.  Westhoff,  Münster,  i860;  H  Hurler,  SS.  Patr. 
opusc.    sei.,    xx.     Recent    German   versions   are    owing   to    C.  Haas,    Die 

1  Dial.,   iii.   38.  2  Horn,  in  Evang.,  ii.   28. 


656 


THIRD    PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 


Pastoralschriften  des  hl.  Gregor  d.  Gr.  und  des  hl.  Ambrosius  von  Mai- 
land übersetzt,  Tübingen,  1862,  pp.  r — 235,  and  Th.  Kranzfelder,  Kempten, 
1873  (Bibl.  der  Kirchenväter).  A.  M.  Micheletti,  S.  Gregorii  papae  cogno- 
mento  Magni  «Regula  pastoralis»,  Tournai,  1904.  B.  Sauter,  Des  heiligen 
Papstes  Gregorius  d.  Gr.  Pastoralregel,  Freiburg,  1904.  For  a  new  text- 
recension  of  some  extracts  ex  Gregorii  Magni  dialogorum  libris  see  G.  Waitz, 
in  Mon.  Germ.  hist,  script,  rer.  Langob.  et  Italic,  saec.  vi — ix,  Hannover, 
1878 ;  in  German  by  Th.  Kranzfelder,  Kempten,  1873.  L.  Wiese,  Die  Sprache 
der  Dialoge,  Halle,  1900  (with  an  appendix:  Sermo  de  sapientia  and  mo- 
ralium  in  Job  fragmenta).  H.  Zwirmann,  Das  Verhältnis  der  altlothringi- 
schen Übersetzung  der  Homilien  Gregors  über  Ezechiel  zum  Original  und 
zu  der  Übersetzung  der  Predigten  Bernhards,  Halle,  1904.  The  Greek 
version  that  accompanies  the  Latin  text  of  the  Dialogues  (Migne ,  PL., 
lxxvii.  149 — 430)  was  made  by  Pope  Zachary  (741 — 752);  cf.  H.  Delehaye, 
St.  Gregoire  le  Grand  dans  l'hagiographie  grecque,  in  Analecta  Bollan- 
diana  (1904),  pp.  449 — 454.  A  new  edition  of  the  life  of  St.  Benedict,  in 
the  second  book  of  the  Dialogues  (Migne,  PL.,  Ivi.  125 — 204),  is  owing  to 
P.  Cozza-Luzzi ,  Rome,  1880.  San  Gregorio  Magno  edi  monasteri 
sublacensi.  Contributio  dei  monaci  sublacensi  al  congresso  storico-liturgico 
(nel  xiii  centenario),  Rome,  1904.  B.  Sauter,  O.  S.  B.,  Der  heilige  Vater 
Benediktus  nach  St.  Gregor  dem  Großen.  Zum  13.  Zentenarium  des 
hl.  Gregor  herausgegeben  von  seinen  Mönchen,  Freiburg,  1904.  The  Ho- 
miliae  xl  in  evangelia  are  also  found  in  Hurler,  SS.  Patr.  opusc.  sei., 
series  ii,  t.  vi,  Innsbruck,  1892 ;  cf.  G.  Pfeil schifler,  Die  authentische  Aus- 
gabe der  Evangelienhomilien  Gregors  d.  Gr.,  Munich,  1900  (Veröffent- 
lichungen aus  dem  kirchenhistor.  Seminar  München,  no.  4).  For  the  Sacra- 
mentarium  Gregorianum  see  the  works  of  Duchesne  and  Probst  (§  97,  3), 
also  Probst,  Die  abendländische  Messe  vom  5.  bis  zum  8.  Jahrhundert, 
Münster,  1896.  E.  Bishop,  On  some  early  manuscripts  of  the  Gregorianum, 
in  Journal  of  Theological  Studies  (1902 — 1903),  iv.  411 — 426  (the  genuine 
text  of  the  Registrum  sent  by  Hadrian  I.  to  Charlemagne  is  represented 
by  one  series  of  manuscripts  based  on  Cod.  Vat.  Reg.  327).  The  relations 
of  Gregory  to  plain-chant  are  discussed  by  F.  A.  Gevaert ,  Les  origines 
du  chant  liturgique  de  l'eglise  latine,  Ghent,  1890.  Id.,  La  melopee  antique 
dans  le  chant  de  l'eglise  latine,  Ghent,  1895.  G.  Morin,  Der  Ursprung 
des  Gregorianischen  Gesanges  (from  the  French,  1890),  by  Th.  Elsässer, 
Paderborn,  1892.  The  origin  of  the  hymns  attributed  to  Gregory  is  treated 
by  Manitius,  Gesch.  der  christl.-latein.  Poesie,  Stuttgart,  1891,  pp.  384—388. 
5.  works  on  Gregory.  —  A  hitherto  unedited  Vita  S.  Gregorii, 
written  in  England  early  in  the  eighth  century,  is  described  by  F.  Ewald, 
Die  älteste  Biographie  Gregors  I.,  in  Historische  Aufsätze  dem  Andenken 
an  G.  Waitz  gewidmet,  Hannover,  1886,  pp.  17—54;  F.  A.  Gastet,  A 
Life  of  Pope  Gregory  the  Great,  written  by  a  monk  of  Whitbv  (pro- 
bably about  713),  London,  1904.  The  Vita  S.  Gregorii  of  Paulus  Dia- 
conus  (Paul  Warnefried),  written  in  the  second  half  of  the  eighth  century 
(Migne,  PL.,  lxxv.  41—59),  was  edited,  in  its  original  form,  from  Italian 
manuscripts  by  H.  Grisar,  in  Zeitschrift  für  kath.  Theol.  (1887),  xi.  158 
to  173.  Johannes  Diaconus  wrote  a  third  Vita  S.  Gregorii  at  Rome  in 
872  or  873  (Migne,  PL.,  lxxv.  59—242).  Among  the  modern  lives  of 
Gregory  we  may  mention:  Fr.  and  P.  Böhringer ,  Die  Väter  des  Papst- 
tums: Leo  I.  und  Gregor  I,  Stuttgart,  1879  (Die  Kirche  Christi  und  ihre 
Zeugen,  new  edition).  W.  Wisbaum,  Die  wichtigsten  Richtungen  und  Ziele 
rl  £fSkeit  des  Papstes  Gregor  d.  Gr.  (Inaug.-Diss.),  Leipzig,  1885. 
^CWr  St  Gregoire  le  Grand,  pape  et  docteur  de  l'eglise,  Paris, 
1886  1891.     C.  Wolfsgruber,    Gregor  d.  Gr.,    Saulgau,   1890.     The  Civiltä 


§  1 1 8.  POPE  ST.  GREGORY  THE  GREAT.  657 

Cattolica,  series  14,  vol.  v— ix  (1890 — 1891),  and  series  15,  vol.  i— v  (1892 
to  1893)  contains  a  number  of  articles  entitled:  II  pontificato  di  S.  Gre- 
gorio  Magno  nella  storia  della  civiltä  cristiana,  reprinted  in  H.  Grisar, 
Roma  alia  fine  del  mondo  antico,  part  III,  Rome,  1899.  Fr-  Gbrres, 
Papst  Gregor  der  Große  und  Kaiser  Phocas,  in  Zeitschr.  für  wissen- 
schaftliche Theol.  (1901),  xliv.  592—602.  T.  Bonsmann,  Gregor  I.  der 
Große,  ein  Lebensbild  (1890).  R.  Sabbadini,  Gregorio  Magno  e  la  gram- 
matica,  in  Bolletino  di  filologia  classica  (1902),  viii.  204 — 206  259.  T.  Hodgkin, 
Italy  and  her  invaders,  London,  1895,  vol.  v,  cc.  7 — 10.  B.  Gatta,  Un 
parallelo  storico  (Marco  Aurelio,  Gregorio  Magno),  Milano,  R.  Instituto 
lombardo,  1901.  K.  Mann,  The  Lives  of  the  Popes  in  the  early  Middle 
Ages,  London,  1902,  i.  1 — 250.  F.  Homes  Dudden,  Gregory  the  Great, 
his  Place  in  History  and  Thought,  London,  1905.  H.  Grisar ,  San  Gre- 
gorio Magno  (590—604),  Rome,  1904.  J.  Doize,  Deux  eludes  sur  1' ad- 
ministration temporelle  du  pape  Gregoire  le  Grand,  Paris,  1904.  D.  E. 
Benedetti,  S.  Gregorio  Magno  e  la  schiavitü,  Rome,  1904.  G.  Cappello,  Gre- 
gorio I.  e  il  suo  pontificato  (540—604),  Saluzzo,   1904. 

6.  immediate  predecessors  of  Gregory  i.  —  The  Epistolae  Ioannis 
P.  III.  (560 — 573:  Migne,  PL.,  lxxii.  13 — 18),  also  the  Epistolae  Benedicti 
P.  I.  (574 — 578:  Ib.,  lxxii.  683 — 686),  are  spurious.  On  the  Epistolae  et 
decreta  Pelagii  P.  II.  (578 — 590:  Ib.,  lxxii.  703 — 760)  cf.  F.  Kaltenbrunner , 
in  Jaffi,  Reg.  Pontif.  Rom.,  2.  ed.  (1885),  i.  137 — 140. 

7.  the  liber  poNTiFiCALis.  —  This  is  the  name  usually  given  to  a 
series  of  biographical  sketches  of  the  popes  beginning  with  St.  Peter  and 
reaching  far  into  the  mediaeval  period.  The  lives  are  arranged  in  the  order 
of  the  papal  succession.  Under  the  name  of  each  pope  are  given  brief 
indications  of  his  family ,  the  length  of  his  reign,  the  disciplinary  decrees 
issued  by  him,  the  ecclesiastical  edifices  he  built,  and  occasionally  accounts 
of  historico-political  events  are  added.  At  the  end  of  each  vita  are  always 
found  some  statements  concerning  the  number  of  ordinations  performed 
by  the  pope,  the  date  and  place  of  his  burial  and  the  period  during  which 
the  see  was  vacant.  The  earliest  of  these  papal  notitiae  are  extremely 
brief,  laconic,  and  composed  in  almost  lapidary  style.  After  the  fourth 
century  they  grow  longer;  In  the  eighth  and  ninth  centuries  some  of  these 
lives  become  formal  histories  of  the  popes.  Since  the  sixteenth  century 
it  had  been  customary  to  ascribe  the  authorship  of  this  work  to  Anastasius 
Bibliothecariüs,  a  Roman  writer  who  lived  in  the  latter  part  of  the  ninth 
century.  It  is  now  well-known  that  the  work  is  of  much  earlier  origin, 
and  that  Anastasius  had  nothing  to  do  with  its  composition.  The  book 
has  grown  gradually.  The  oldest  part  of  it,  from  St.  Peter  to  Felix  IV. 
(530),  was  compiled  in  the  reign  of  Pope  Boniface  II.  (530 — 532)  by  a 
Roman  ecclesiastic.  His  principal  historical  authority  for  the  earliest  times 
was  the  Catalogus  Liberianus  (§  88,  8).  The  so-called  Catalogus  Felicianus, 
however,  a  short  history  of  the  popes  to  Felix  IV.  (530),  is  not,  as  some 
have  maintained,  a  source  or  the  oldest  redaction  of  this  first  part  of  the 
Liber  Pontifiealis,  but  rather  a  later  compendium  of  the  same ;  it  is  the  work 
of  unknown  but  generally  contemporary  writers,  and  was  afterwards  com- 
pleted and  extended  to  Hadrian  II.  (f  872)  or  Stephen  V.  (f  891),  though 
some  manuscripts  still  give  a  fragment  of  the  latter  pope's  life  and  omit 
the  popes  between  Hadrian  II.  and  Stephen.  This  second  and  later  part 
of  the  book  covers  the  period  between  the  sixth  and  the  ninth  centuries, 
and  is  in  general  an  historical  authority  of  the  highest  rank,  while  the 
first  and  older  part  of  the  work,  apart  from  its  later  lives,  is  both  untrust- 
worthy and  defective  in  historical  contents.     Until   lately  the  best  edition 

Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology.  4^ 


658 


THIRD   PERIOD.      THIRD   SECTION. 


of  the  Liber  Pontificalis  was  that  of  Fr.  Bianchini,  Rome,  1718  ff.,  4  vols., 
(Migne,  PL.,  cxxvii— cxxix).  A  new  edition  of  this  work  universally  re- 
cognized as  monumental,  is  owing  to  L.  Duchesne:  Le  Liber  pontificalis. 
Texte,  introduction  et  commentaire,  Paris,  1886— 1892,  2  vols.  (Bibliotheque 
des  Ecoles  franchises  d'Athenes  et  de  Rome,  2.  series,  iii).  The  first 
volume  of  this  edition  goes  as  far  as  795,  the  second  does  not  stop  at 
the  end  of  the  ninth  century ,  but  exhibits  later  continuations  as  far  as 
1 43 1.  Another  new  edition  was  begun  by  Th.  Mommsen,  in  Monum.  Germ, 
hist.  Gesta  pontif.  Rom.,  Berlin,  1898,  i.  Cf.  Duchesne,  in  Melanges 
d'archeologie  et  d'histoire  (1898),  xviii.  381 — 417,  and  H.  Grisar,  II  Liber 
Pontificalis  fino  al  secolo  ix,  in  Analecta  Romana,  Rome,   1899,  >•  I_ 25- 

§  119.    St.  Martin  of  Bracara  and  St.  Isidore  of  Seville. 

I.  MARTIN  OF  BRACARA.  —  Martin  of  Bracara  (Braga)  was  born 
in  Pannonia  and  became  a  monk  in  Palestine,  but  spent  the  greater 
part  of  his  life  in  Gallecia  or  Northwestern  Spain.  He  was  for  a  time 
abbot  of  Dumio,  a  monastery  near  Braga,  the  residence  of  the  Suevic 
kings.  At  the  first  synod  of  Bracara  (561),  he  signs  as  bishop  of 
Dumio,  hence  the  appellation  Martinus  Dumiensis.  In  572,  at  the  second 
synod  of  Bracara,  we  meet  him  as  metropolitan  of  Bracara  (Martinus 
Bracarensis).  His  mission  was  the  conversion  of  the  Suevic  tribes  in 
Spain  from  Arianism  to  Catholicism.  He  died  in  580  and  is  honor- 
ed as  a  Saint.  Gregory  of  Tours  is  witness  *  that  Martin  was  second 
to  none  of  his  contemporaries  in  virtue  and  learning.  Most  of  his 
writings  are  moral  or  ascetical  in  contents.  The  best  known  is  his: 
Formula  vitae  honestae,  as  he  entitles  it  himself,  or:  De  differentiis 
quattuor  virtutum,  as  Isidore  of  Seville2  calls  it.  This  work  is  pre- 
ceded by  a  dedicatory  epistle  addressed  to  the  Suevic  king,  Miro 
(57° — 583),  who  had  frequently  besought  Martin  to  address  him  oc- 
casionally a  word  of  consolation  or  instruction.  The  writer  then  pro- 
ceeds to  develop  the  moral  precepts  of  the  natural  law  from  the 
stand-point  of  the  four  platonic  cardinal  virtues :  prudentia,  magnanimi- 
tas  s.  fortitudo,  continentia  s.  temperantia,  .iustitia.  This  exposition 
of  the  natural  law  was  probably  borrowed  from  some  lost  work  of 
Seneca.  Another  little  work  of  Martin  is  entitled :  De  ira,  and  is 
now  known  to  be  a  compendium  of  the  three  books  of  Seneca:  De 
ira.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  Christian  morality  that  is  developed 
in  the  treatises:  Pro  repellenda  iactantia,  De  superbia,  Exhortatio 
humilitatis,  that  form  a  single  group,  and  were  all  addressed  to 
Miro.  The  sermon:  De  correctione  rusticorum  aims  at  extirpating 
the  pagan  ideas  and  superstitious  customs  current  among  the  peasan- 
try of  his  diocese,  and  offers  many  interesting  details  of  importance 
for  the  history  of  European  culture  and  Christian  preaching:  it  was 
decided  by  the  second  council  of  Bracara  that  in  their  pastoral  visi- 
tations the  bishops  should  make  every  effort  to  extirpate  from  Suevic 

1  Hist.  Franc,  v.  37.  2  De  „^  m ^  fc  35 


§    119-      ST.    MARTIN    OF    BRACARA    AND    ST.    ISIDORE    OF    SEVILLE.       659 

society  the  err  ores  idolorum;  for  his  better  instruction  Polemius, 
bishop  of  Asturica  (Astorga),  asked  Martin  to  send  him  a  short  in- 
struction de  origine  idolorum  et  sceleribus  ipsorum.  Martin's  reply 
was  this  work ;  he  tells  Polemius  that  it  was  a  sermon,  and  that  he 
might  make  good  use  of  it  in  the  visitation  of  his  diocese.  The 
two  collections:  Aegyptiorum  patrum  sententiae,  and:  Verba  seniorum, 
are  versions  from  the  Greek;  the  first  was  made  by  Martin  while 
still  abbot  of  Dumio,  the  second,  at  Dumio  also,  by  the  monk  Pascha- 
sius,  at  the  request  and  with  the  aid  of  Martin.  A  collection  of 
pious  sayings :  Libellus  de  moribus,  and  a  treatise :  De  paupertate, 
containing  many  quotations  from  the  letters  of  Seneca,  are  considered 
spurious.  In  the  history  of  the  sources  and  literature  of  mediaeval 
canon  law  Martin  merits  a  place  by  reason  of  the  so-called :  Capitula 
Martini,  a  collection  of  canons,  mostly  of  Oriental  but  containing 
some  Western  canons  (Spanish  and  African),  and  compiled  after 
561.  The  first  part  of  this  collection  treats  of  the  clergy  and  con- 
tains sixty-eight  canons;  the  second  treats  chiefly  of  the  duties  and 
the  faults  of  the  laity  and  contains  sixteen  canons.  The  little  treatise: 
De  Pascha,  was  composed  by  Martin  in  order  to  explain  to  his  people 
why  Easter  is  celebrated  on  variable  days  the  series  of  which  begins 
with  the  xi.  Kal.  Apr.  and  ends  on  xi.  Kal.  Maii.  He  says  that  such 
was  the  custom  handed  down  from  his  predecessors.  The :  Epistola 
de  trina  mersione,  is  addressed  to  a  bishop  named  Boniface,  probably 
resident  among  the  Visigoths.  In  it  he  decries  as  Sabellian  all  bap- 
tism sub  una  mersione,  a  custom  that  had  been  adopted  in  Spain  in 
a  spirit  of  opposition  to  Arianism.  Finally,  we  possess  still  three 
short  poems  or  metrical  inscriptions  composed  by  Martin.  Isidore 
of  Seville  says1  that  he  wrote  also  a  volumen  epistolarum,  but  it 
seems  to  have  perished. 

2.     WORKS    ON    MARTIN    OF    BRACARA.     OTHER  SPANISH  WRITERS.  —  There 

is  no  complete  edition  of  the  writings  of  Martin  of  Bracara.  The  following 
are  found  in  Gallandi  (Bibl.  vet.  Patr.  xii):  Formula  vitae  honestae,  Liber 
de  moribus,  Pro  repellenda  iactantia,  De  superbia,  Exhortatio  humilitatis, 
De  ira,  De  pascha,  and  the  metrical  inscriptions.  Migne  (PL.,  lxxii)  re- 
prints these  works  from  Gallandi,  elsewhere  he  reprints  the  Verba  senio- 
rum (Ib.,  lxxiii.  1025 — 1062),  Aegyptiorum  patrum  sententiae  (Ib.,  lxxiv. 
381—394),  Capitula  Martini  (Ib.,  lxxxiv.  574—586;  cxxx.  575— 588);  there 
are  lacking  in  Migne:  De  correctione  rusticorum,  Epistola  de  trina  mer- 
sione, and  De  paupertate.  All  editions  of  Martin's  writings  are  indicated 
and  described  with  his  usual  accuracy  by  C.  P.  Caspari,  Martins  von  Bra- 
cara Schrift  «De  correctione  rusticorum»,  Christiania,  1883.  The  work 
most  frequently  printed  is  the  Formula  vitae  honestae.  Among  the  prcse 
works  of  Seneca  edited  by  Fr.  Haase  (Leipzig,  1852 — 1853  1893 — 1895) 
the  reader  will  find,  in  an  appendix  (iii.  458—475)»  tne  De  paupertate, 
Liber  de  moribus,  and  Formula  vitae  honestae.  The  Capitula  Martini  are 
found  in  several  collections  of  councils  and  canonical  documents;  cf.  Fr. 

1  De  viris  ill.,  c.  35. 

42* 


660  THIRD    PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 

Maassen,  Geschichte  der  Quellen  und  der  Literatur  des  kanonischen  Rechts, 
Graz,  1870,  i.  802 — 806.  For  a  later  recensions  of  the  De  pascha,  among 
the  spurious  works  of  St.  Athanasius,  cf.  §  63,  11.  The  three  metrical 
inscriptions  were  included  in  P.  Peiper's  edition  of  the  works  of  St.  Avitus 
of  Vienne  (Monum.  Germ.  hist.  Auct.  antiquiss.  vi.  2),  pp.  194 — 196.  — 
Among  other  works  of  Apringius,  bishop  of  Pace  (Badajoz)  about  540, 
Isidore  of  Seville  notes  (De  viris  ill.,  c.  30)  a  commentary  on  the  Apo- 
calypse, until  recently  reputed  lost.  Quite  lately  some  important  fragments 
of  it  were  discovered:  the  explanation  of  the  first  five  and  the  last  five 
chapters  of  the  Apocalypse,  in  a  manuscript  of  the  University  of  Copen- 
hagen. They  were  edited  by  M.  Firotin:  Apringius  de  Beja.  Son  com- 
mentaire  de  1' Apocalypse,  Paris,  1900.  Cf.  H.  L.  Ramsay ,  Le  commen- 
taire  sur  l'Apocalypse  par  Beams  de  Libana,  in  Revue  d'hist.  et  de  litter, 
religieuses  (1902),  vii.  419 — 447;  F.  Fita,  Apringio  de  Beja,  in  Boletin  de 
la  R.  Academia  de  la  Historia  (1902),  xli.  535 — 616.  K.  Weyman,  Text- 
kritische  Bemerkungen  zum  Apokalypsenkommentar  des  Apringius,  in  Bi- 
blische Zeitschrift  (1903),  i.  175 — 181.  —  The  Liber  responsionum  ad  quem- 
dam  Rusticum  de  interrogatis  quaestionibus  (doctrinal  in  contents ;  in  Isid. 
Hisp.,  De  viris  ill.,  c.  33),  written  by  Justinian,  bishop  of  Valencia  (f  after 
546),  seems  to  have  perished.  A.  Helfferich  identifies  it  with  the  Anno- 
tations de  cognitione  baptismi  (Migne,  PL.,  xcvi.  in — 172),  current  under 
the  name  of  St.  Ildephonsus  of  Toledo;  cf.  P.  B.  Gams,  Die  Kirchen- 
geschichte von  Spanien,  Ratisbon,  1864,  ii  1,  455.  —  Justus,  bishop  of 
Urgel  (f  after  546),  and  brother  of  the  aforesaid  Justinian,  left  a  brief 
allegorical  commentary  on  the  Canticle  of  canticles  [Migne,  PL.,  lxvii.  961 
to  994)  dedicated  to  his  metropolitan,  Sergius  of  Tarragona;  cf.  Gams, 
1.  c. ,  p.  441.  Isidore  of  Seville  adds  (1.  c. ,  c.  34)  the  following  to  his 
notice  of  Justus  of  Urgel:  Huius  quoque  fratres,  Nebridius  et  Elpidius  (also 
bishops,  ib.,  c.  $^j  quaedam,  scripsisse  feruntur. 

3.  ST.  ISIDORE  OF  SEVILLE.  —  In  585  the  Visigothic  king,  Leovi- 
gild,  overthrew  the  Suevic  kingdom;  thenceforth  almost  all  Spain 
was  subject  to  the  Visigothic  rule.  What  Martin  of  Bracara  had 
done  among  the  Suevi,  was  now  accomplished  among  the  Visigoths 
by  St.  Leander,  who  was  from  about  584  till  his  death  (600  or  601) 
archbishop  of  Seville.  He  was  at  first  sent  into  exile  by  Leovigild 
for  the  prominent  part  he  had  taken  in  the  conversion  of  the  king's 
son,  St.  Hermenegild.  He  was  also  the  chief  agent  in  the  national 
conversion  of  the  Visigoths,  accomplished  (May  589)  at  the  third 
council  of  Toledo  in  the  reign  of  Reccared,  successor  of  Leovigild. 
Isidore  of  Seville  describes  his  writings  1,  only  fragments  of  which 
have  survived.  His  anti-Arian  works  have  perished,  also  his  numerous 
letters,  among  which  were  some  to  Gregory  I.,  with  whom  he  was  on 
terms  of  intimate  friendship.  There  are  now  extant  only  a  monastic 
rule  for  nuns:  Ad  Florentinam  sororem  de  institutione  virginum  et 
contemptu  mundi  libellus2,  and  a  discourse  delivered  at  the  close  of 
the  aforesaid  council:  Homilia  de  triumpho  ecclesiae  ob  conversionem 
Gothorum;  both  works  are  of  a  character  to  make  us  sincerely  regret 
the  loss  of  his   other    writings.    The   literary   fame   of  Leander   was 

1  De  viris  ill.,  c.  41.  2  j^ 


§    119.      ST.    MARTIN    OF   BRACARA    AND    ST.    ISIDORE    OF    SEVILLE.      66 1 

far  surpassed  by  that  of  Isidore,  his  younger  brother,  and  successor 
in  the  see  of  Seville  (f  636).  But  little  is  known  of  his  career  as 
a  bishop.  The  last  great  event  of  his  life  was  the  fourth  national 
council  of  Toledo,  in  December  633,  over  which  he  presided.  He 
was  even  then  acknowledged  to  be  the  most  scholarly  man  of  his 
age  and  the  restorer  of  learning  in  Spain.  To  his  own  oft-quoted 
work  De  viris  illustrious  the  following  notitia  was  added  after  the 
death  of  Isidore,  by  his  friend  Braulio,  bishop  of  Saragossa  (Prae- 
notatio  librorum  Divi  Isidori):  quern  Deus  post  tot  defectus  Hispaniae 
novissimis  temporibus  suscitans,  credo  ad  restauranda  antiquorum 
monumenta,  ne  usquequaque  rusticitate  veterasceremus,  quasi  quam- 
dam  apposuit  destinam1.  The  eighth  synod  of  Toledo  (653)  says 
of  Isidore :  nostri  saeculi  doctor  egregius,  ecclesiae  catholiciae  novis- 
simum  decus,  praecedentibus  aetate  postremus,  doctrinae  comparatione 
non  infimus,  et  quod  maius  est,  in  saeculorum  fine  doctissimus 2. 
Isidore,  indeed,  possesses  and  assimilates  all  the  knowledge  of  his 
time,  while  in  the  quality  of  his  literary  labors  he  far  surpasses  all 
Spanish  Christian  writers  of  antiquity.  He  considers  it  his  mission  to 
counteract  the  spreading  barbarism  of  his  surroundings  by  the  diffusion 
of  education  and  learning;  his  strenuous  efforts  in  this  direction  en- 
title him  to  the  affectionate  gratitude,  not  only  of  Spain  but  of  the 
entire  West.  He  felt  himself  called,  like  Boethius  and  Cassiodorius, 
to  collect  the  remaining  intellectual  treasures  of  Roman  antiquity 
and  hand  them  down  to  the  new  German  society.  The  influence  of 
Isidore's  writings  on  the  European  mind  during  the  Middle  Ages 
is  simply  incalculable.  It  must  be  said  that  they  exhibit  but  little  ori- 
ginality. Isidore  is  less  concerned  with  fresh  researches  than  with 
the  garnering  of  the  scientific  inheritance  of  his  intellectual  ancestry. 
When  we  consider  the  circumstances  of  his  age,  we  may  rightly 
wonder  at  the  extent  of  his  eruditioti  and  the  intensity  of  his  zeal 
as  a  compiler.  In  the  following  centuries  these  works,  genuine  com- 
pendia of  entire  libraries,  were  all  the  more  highly  valued  because 
of  the  simple  and  clear  style  in  which  they  were  written.  It  is  only 
natural  that  his  pages  should  frequently  reveal  that  decadence  of 
taste  which  is  distinctive  of  epochs  of  dissolution  and  transition. 
The  Latin  diction  of  Isidore  is  particularly  interesting  to  philologists 
because  of  the  many  Visigothic  elements  that  it  contains.  His  writ- 
ings furnish  the  first  chapter  in  the  history  of  Spanish  literature. 
The  most  extensive  and  influential  of  his  compilations  is  the:  Etymo- 
logiae  (Origines),  finished  by  Isidore  only  a  short  time  before  his 
death,  and  divided  by  his  friend  Braulio,  to  whom  he  sent  the 
manuscript  for  correction,  into  twenty  books.  The  work  is  a  com- 
pendious encyclopedia,  in  which  the  subject-matter  of  universal  know- 
ledge is  arranged  and  described  in  connection  with  a  very  bizarre 
1  Migne,  PL.,  Ixxxi.   16 — 17.  2  Mansi,  SS.  Cone.  Coll.,  x.   121 5. 


662  THIRD   PERIOD.      THIRD   SECTION. 

and  fantastic  etymology,  which  circumstance  gave  the  name  to  the 
whole.  The  books  are  entitled  as  follows:  I.  De  grammatica;  2.  De 
rhetorica  et  dialectica;  3.  De  quatuor  disciplinis  mathematicis  (arith- 
metic, geometry,  music,  astronomy);  4.  De  medicina;  5.  De  legibus 
et  temporibus  (inclusive  of  a  short  universal  chronicle  to  627);  6.  De 
libris  et  officiis  ecclesiasticis ;  7.  De  Deo,  angelis  et  ndelium  ordinibus; 
8.  De  ecclesia  et  sectis  diversis;  9.  De  Unguis,  gentibus,  regnis,  mili- 
tia, civibus,  affinitatibus ;  10.  Vocum  certarum  alphabetum  (etymologies); 
II.  De  homine  et  portentis;  12.  De  animalibus;  13.  De  mundo  et 
partibus;  14.  De  terra  et  partibus;  15.  De  aedificiis  et  agris;  16.  De 
lapidibus  et  metallis;  17.  De  rebus  rusticis;  18.  De  bello  et  ludis; 
19.  De  navibus,  aedificiis  et  vestibus;  20.  De  penu  et  instrumentis 
domesticis  et  rusticis.  Very  little  has  hitherto  been  accomplished 
for  the  textual  criticism  of  this  much  used  and  variously  altered  and 
corrupted  work.  Modern  scholarship  has  scarcely  begun  to  investi- 
gate the  number  and  character  of  the  authorities  of  Isidore  and  his 
manner  of  utilizing  them.  The  work  is  largely,  almost  entirely,  a 
mosaic-like  construction,  made  up  of  an  immense  number  of  excerpts. 
It  is  clear  that  very  many  of  the  later  Christian  and  classical  works 
quoted  by  Isidore  were  read  by  him  at  first  hand ;  this  is  true  even 
of  similar  works  that  are  no  longer  extant.  Other  earlier  writers 
were  known  and  quoted  by  Isidore  from  compilations  current  in  his 
time.  To  the  mediaeval  student  the  Etymologiae,  with  all  their  im- 
perfections, were  a  real  mine  of  information.  They  furnished  the  model 
and  much  of  the  material  for  all  mediaeval  dictionaries.  Isidore  com- 
posed several  other  works  of  the  same  general  character.  Thus,  the: 
Libri  duo  differentiarum :  De  differentiis  verborum  (a  dictionary  of 
synonyms),  and  De  differentiis  rerum  (brief  explanations  of  theologic- 
al notions),  are  companion-works  to  the  first  two  books  of  the  Etymo- 
logiae. In  turn,  the  first  book  of  these  Differentiae  is  further  illus- 
trated by  two  books  of  Synonyma,  often  called :  Liber  lamentationum, 
because  of  the  peculiar  manner  in  which  synonyms  are  set  forth. 
At  the  request  of  the  Visigoth  king  Sisebut,  our  author  composed 
an  elementary  manual  of  physics  which  he  entitled :  De  natura  rerum. 
His  work:  De  ordine  creaturarum  deals  with  the  phenomena  of  the 
spiritual  and  the  physical  order.  The  short  universal  chronicle  in 
the  fifth  book  of  the  Etymologiae  is  taken  from  an  earlier  Chronicon 
that  reached  to  615;  the  preface  says  that  it  was  based  on  Julius 
Africanus,  Eusebius-Jerome  and  Victor  of  Tunnuna.  The :  Historia 
de  regibus  Gothorum,  Wandalorum  et  Suevorum  is  a  chronicle  of 
the  Visigoths,  with  two  short  chronicle-like  appendixes  on  the  history 
of  the  Vandals  and  the  Suevi;  it  is  also  substantially  a  compendium 
of  earlier  historical  works  on  these  subjects,  and  has  reached  us  in 
two  recensions,  a  shorter  one  that  stops  at  the  death  of  Sisebut 
(62 1),   and  a  longer  one  that  reaches  to  the   fifth   year   of  his   sue- 


§    II9.      ST.    MARTIN    OF    BRACARA    AND    ST.    ISIDORE    OF    SEVILLE.      663 

cessor  Suintilas.  We  have  already  mentioned  (§  2,  2)  a  third  histo- 
rical work  of  Isidore,  his  continuation  of  the  De  viris  illustribus  of 
St.  Jerome.  Apropos  of  this  well-known  and  useful  work  of  literary 
biography  we  may  enumerate  the  theological  writings  of  Isidore. 
Among  them  the  following  are  worthy  of  mention :  De  ortu  et  obitu 
patrum  qui  in  Scriptura  laudibus  efferuntur  (a  history  of  the  persons 
prominent  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments) ;  Allegoriae  quaedam  Sacrae 
Scripturae  (on  the  allegorical  significance  of  important  personalities  of 
Bible  history) ;  Liber  numerorum  qui  in  Sanctis  Scripturis  occurrunt  (on 
the  mystical  meaning  of  Scriptural  numbers) ;  In  libros  Veteris  et  Novi 
Testamenti  prooemia;  De  Veteri  et  Novo  Testamento  quaestiones; 
Mysticorum  expositiones  sacramentorum  seu  quaestiones  in  Vetus 
Testamentum  (in  Genesim,  in  Exodum,  in  Leviticum,  in  Numeros, 
in  Deuteronomium,  in  Josue,  in  librum  Judicum,  in  libros  Regum, 
in  Esdram,  in  libros  Machabaeorum).  Special  mention  must  be  made 
of  his  little  apologetico-polemical  treatise :  De  fide  catholica  ex  Veteri 
et  Novo  Testamento  contra  Judaeos  ad  Florentinam  sororem  suam, 
which  book  was  early  in  the  Middle  Ages  translated  into  several 
European  vernaculars,  among  others  into  German.  The:  Libri  tres 
sententiarum,  are  a  kind  of  manual  of  dogmatic  and  moral  theology, 
constructed  from  the  writings  of  approved  ecclesiastical  authorities, 
especially  St.  Gregory  the  Great.  Of  the  two  books  into  which  his 
liturgical  work:  De  ecclesiasticis  officiis,  is  divided,  the  first:  De 
origine  officiorum,  treats  of  the  divine  worship,  while  the  second:  De 
origine  ministrorum,  treats  of  the  clergy.  In  his  Regula  monachorum, 
Isidore  gave  proof  of  his  deep  concern  for  the  improvement  of  the 
monastic  life  which  he  held  to  be  the  cradle  of  all  learning  and  the 
refuge  of  all  scholarship.  Only  a  few  of  his  letters  have  been  pre- 
served.   The  hymns  current  under  his  name  are  all  spurious. 

4.    WORKS  ON  ISIDORE  OF  SEVILLE.    OTHER  SPANISH  WRITERS.  —  F.  Görres, 

Leander,  Bischof  von  Sevilla,  in  Zeitschr.  für  wissenschaftl.  Theol.  (1886), 
xxix.  36—50.  The  Monastic  Rule  and  the  Discourse  of  Leander  are  in 
Migne,  PL.,  lxxii.  874 — 898.  —  The  best  edition  of  the  works  of  Isidore 
is  that  of  Fr.  Arevalo,  Rome,  1797 — 1803,  7  vols.  {Migne,  PL.,  Ixxxi  to 
lxxxiv).  Teuffel-Schwabe ,  in  Gesch.  der  röm.  Lit.,  5.  ed.,  1295,  gives 
a  full  account  of  all  works  relative  to  the  Etymologiae  (researches  on 
manuscript-tradition,  special  editions  of  separate  sections,  and  contributions 
to  the  textual  criticism  of  the  encyclopedia).  H.  Dressel,  De  Isidori  Ori- 
ginum  fontibus  (Diss,  inaug.),  Turin,  1874.  G.  Mercati,  L' eta  di  Simmaco 
l'interprete  e  S.  Epifanio,  Modena,  1893,  pp.  80 — 87.  H.  Schwarz,  Ob- 
servationes  criticae  in  Isidori  Hispaliensis  Origines  (Progr.) ,  Hirschberg, 
1895.  The  De  natura  rerum  was  edited  separately  by  G.  Becker,  Berlin, 
1857.  The  historical  writings  of  Isidore  were  edited  anew  by  Th.  Mommsen, 
Chronica  minora  saec.  iv  v  vi  vii,  vol.  ii  (Monum.  Germ.  hist.  Auct. 
antiquiss.),  Berlin,  1894,  xi.  241 — 303;  Isidori  Iunioris  episc.  Hispal.  Hi- 
storia  Gothorum,  Wandalorum,  Sueborum  ad  a.  624  (pp.  304 — 390:  various 
supplements);  pp.  391 — 488:  Chronica  maiora  ed.  primum  a.  615.  Chro- 
nicorum  epitome  ed.  a.  627  (pp.  489 — 506:   Auctarium   chronicorum   ma- 


664  THIRD    PERIOD.      THIRD    SECTION. 

iorum  ad  a.  624,  and  other  additions).  H.  Hertzberg,  Über  die  Chroniken 
des  Isidorus  von  Sevilla,  in  Forschungen  zur  deutschen  Geschichte  (1875), 
xv  2g9 — 360.  A  German  version  of  the  Historia  de  regibus  Gothorum, 
Wandalorum  et  Suevorum  was  made  by  D.  Coste ,  Leipzig,  1887  (Die 
Geschichtsschreiber  der  deutschen  Vorzeit,  seventh  century,  i).  K.  Wein- 
hold,  Die  altdeutschen  Bruchstücke  des  Traktats  des  Bischofs  Isidorus  von 
Sevilla  «De  fide  catholica  contra  Iudaeos»,  Paderborn,  1874.  G.  A.  Hench, 
Der  althochdeutsche  Isidor,  Strassburg,  1893.  For  the  poems  current  under 
the  name  of  Isidore  see  M.  Manitius,  Gesch.  der  christl.-latein.  Poesie, 
Stuttgart,  1891 ,  pp.  414 — 420.  Apropos  of  his  De  ecclesiasticis  officiis 
cf.  Dom  Ferotin ,  Le  Liber  ordinum,  en  usage  dans  Teglise  wisigotique 
et  mozarabe  d'Espagne  du  Ve  au  XI6  siecle.  Publie  pour  la  premiere 
fois,  avec  une  introduction,  des  notes,  une  etude  sur  neuf  calendriers 
mozarabes  etc.  (Monumenta  Ecclesiae  Liturgica,  v),  Paris,  1904.  The  life 
and  writings  of  Isidore  are  described  in  detail  by  P.  B.  Gams,  Die  Kirchen- 
geschichte von  Spanien,  Ratisbon,  1874,  ii  2,  102 — 113,  and  by  A.  Ebert, 
Allgem.  Gesch.  der  Literatur  des  Mittelalters  im  Abendlande,  2.  ed.,  i. 
588—602.  —  There  are  extant  {Migne,  PL.,  lxxii.  689 — 700)  three  letters 
of  Licinianus,  bishop  of  Carthagena  (Carthago  Spartaria)  on  the  south- 
eastern coast  of  Spain  in  the  time  of  emperor  Maurice  (582 — 602).  The 
second  letter  maintains  the  immateriality  of  the  angelic  nature.  Cf.  Gams, 
Die  Kirchengeschichte  von  Spanien,  ii  2,  49 — 55.  —  Severus,  bishop  of 
Malaga  and  friend  and  contemporary  of  Licinian,  is  said  by  Isidore  (De 
viris  ill.,  c.  43)  to  have  composed  a  polemical  treatise  against  Vincentius, 
the  Arian  bishop  of  Saragossa,  also  a  treatise  on  virginity  entitled  Annulus 
and  dedicated  to  his  sister.  Both  works  have  apparently  perished.  — 
There  are  extant  two  letters  of  Eutropius,  a  bishop  of  Valencia  towards 
the  end  of  the  sixth  century  {Migne,  PL.,  lxxx.  9 — 20);  cf.  Gams,  1.  c, 
PP-  57—59-  —  In  his  dissertation  entitled  Eine  Bibliothek  der  Symbole 
und  theologischer  Traktate,  Mainz,  1900  (in  Forschungen  zur  christlichen 
Literatur-  und  Dogmengeschichte,  i.  4),  K.  Künstle  made  known  long  ex- 
tracts from  a  collection  of  theological  creeds  and  treatises,  that  were  written 
in  Spain,  towards  the  end  of  the  sixth  century,  in  opposition  to  the  con- 
temporary Priscillianism  and  Arianism.  These  documents  were  preserved 
in  a  ninth-century  manuscript  of  the  monastery  of  Reichenau. 


Corrections. 

Page  209  line    2  for  wellk-nown  read:  well-known. 
>>      4°*     ,,    35    ,,    Hlsuccess  read:  ill  success. 
»»     405     ,,    28    ,,    betrays  e  certain  read:  betrays  a  certain. 
..     514     ,,    19    m    Spared  in  4J7  read:  prepared  in  4J7. 
,,      638     ,,    10    ,,    Vzgilius  read:  V/rgilius. 


INDEX. 


(The   numbers   indicate   the   pages. 


Abgar,  toparch  of  Edessa   109  251. 

Acacius  of  Beroea  347. 

Acacius  of  Caesarea  239  240. 

Acacius  of  Constantinople  534. 

Acacius  of  Melitene   370. 

Achatius  (Acacius),  Acta  disputationis  233. 

Acta  apostolorum  apocrypha,  see  Apostles 
(Acts  of). 

Acta  disputationis  Archelai  et  Manetis  268. 

Acta  Edessena   no. 

Acta  Martyrum :  the  oldest  genuine  Acts 
228 — 233,  Martyrium  St.  Polycarpi  229, 
Acta  St.  Carpi,  Papyli  et  Agathonices 
230,  Acta  St.  Justini  et  sociorum  230, 
Epistola  Ecclesiarum  Viennensis  et  Lug- 
dunensis  230,  Acta  Martyrum  Scillitano- 
rum  231,  Acta  St.  Apollonii  231,  Acta 
St.  Perpetuae  et  Felicitatis  232,  Acta 
St.  Pionii  233,  Acta  disputationis  "St.  Acha- 
tii  233,  Eusebius'  Collection  of  Acts  of 
the  Martyrs  228,  his  work  on  the  con- 
temporary martyrs  in  Palestine  247  251, 
Syriac  Acts  of  the  Martyrs  393.  Other 
Acts  of  Martyrs :  Acta  St.  Anastasii  Per- 
sae  565 ,  St.  Gregorii  Armeni  591, 
St.  Longini  Centurionis  380,  St.  Luciani 
240 ,  St.  Martyrum  Agaunensium  (St. 
Mauricii  et  sociorum  eius)  518  519, 
St.  Martyrum  Carthaginensium  615, 
St.  Martyrum  Homeritarum  552,  St. 
Septem  dormientium  644  647,  St.  Pam- 
phili  et  sociorum  167,  St.  Rhipsimes 
et  sociarum  591  ,  De  martyrio  St.  Si- 
sinnii,  Martyrii  et  Alexandri  444.  See 
Vita  Sanctorum. 

Acta  (Gesta)  Pilati  97. 

Ad  Laodicenses   in. 

Ad  quendam   senatorem,  poem  422  423. 

Adamantius   167   (see  Origen). 

Addaeus,  see  Thaddaeus. 

Addaeus,  Doctrina  Addaei   no. 

Adrian  (Hadrian)  379  380. 

Adrian  II.  657. 


Adversus  Haereses   119. 

Aeneas  of  Gaza  543. 

Aetius  239. 

Africanus,  see  Julius  Africanus. 

Agapetus  of  Constantinople  551. 

Agapitus  I.,  Pope  640. 

Agathangelus  590  591. 

Agnellus  527. 

Agrapha  93. 

Agricola  505. 

Agrippa  Castor  116. 

Alcimus  Avitus  609 — 611. 

Alexander  of  Alexandria  253  263. 

Alexander  of  Jerusalem   164,  cp.  127  128. 

Alexander  of  Lycopolis  269. 

Alexander  of  Salamina  552. 

Alexandrine  Catechetical  School   127. 

Alexandrine  Exegetical  School  235. 

Alexandrinos,  Epistola  ad   in. 

Alfanus  of  Salerno  306. 

Alfred,  King  of  England  511  632  633  653. 

Alliance  (Testament),  Old  and  New  23. 

Alphonsus  Liguori  3. 

Altercatio  Heracliani   cum  Germinio  416. 

Altercatio  Simonis  Judaei  et  Theophili 
Christiani  517. 

Ambrosiaster  440. 

Ambrosius  53. 

Ambrosius,  friend  and  patron  of  Origen 
153,  cp.   136. 

Ambrosius  of  Alexandria  256. 

Ambrosius  of  Milan,  St.  431 — 444:  his 
life  431,  his  writings  433,  exegetical  433 
435,  ascetico-moral  436,  dogmatic  437, 
discourses  and  letters  438,  hymns  and 
other  poems  439 ,  complete  editions, 
translations  of  selected  works  440,  edi- 
tions, translations  and  recensions  of  se- 
parate works  440,  literature  on  Ambro- 
sius 442;  vita  S.  Ambrosii  513. 

Ammon  265. 

Ammonius  of  Alexandria  (3rd  century)  60 
153- 


666 


INDEX. 


Ammonius  of  Alexandria  (5th  century)  533. 

Amoenus  451. 

Amphilochius  of  Iconium  279  286. 

Amphilochius  of  Side  370. 

Ananias  593. 

Anastasius  I.,  Pope  455. 

Anastasius  II.,  Pope  620  621. 

Anastasius  I.  of  Antioch,  St.   574. 

Anastasius  II.  of  Antioch  575. 

Anastasius  III.  of  Nicaea  570  571. 

Anastasius  Apocrisiarius  576   579. 

Anastasius  Bibliothecarius  561   657. 

Anastasius,  Hymn-writer  564. 

Anastasius  Monachus  576  579. 

Anastasius  Sinaita  133   547  580  581. 

Anatolius   157. 

Andreas,  The  Apostle :  Gospel  of  Andreas 
96,  acts  of  Andreas  103,  later  recensions 
of  the  Andreas-Legend   104. 

Andreas  of  Caesarea  569. 

Andreas  of  Crete  567. 

Andreas  of  Samosata  37°- 

Angels:  the  nine  choirs  in  Pseudo-Diony- 
sius  Areopagita  536,  corporeal  according 
to  Faustus  of  Riez  601,  incorporeal  ac- 
cording to  Licinianus  of  Carthagena  664. 

Anianus  (Annianus)  of  Celeda  345  504 
604. 

Anicetus,  Pope  36   117. 

Anonymi  Hermippus  544. 

Anonymous,  Anti-Arian   416. 

Anonymous,  Anti-Montanist  123. 

Anonymous,  Anti-Semipelagian  515. 

Anonymous,  Montanist  85. 

Anonymous,  Poet  420. 

Anonymus  Mellicensis  8. 

Anthimus  78. 

Anthimus  563. 

Anthologia  Palatina  290  note. 

Anthony,  St.   253  264  265. 

Anti-Gnostics  116 — 118. 

Anti-Montanists    123. 

Antitheses  (of  Marcion)  80. 

Antiochene  Exegetical  School  235  236. 

Antiochus,  Monachus  29   573. 

Antiochus  of  Ptolemais  347. 

Antiochus  of  St.  Saba  573. 

Antipater  of  Bostra  532. 

Antiquorum  Patrum  doctrina  de  Verbi  Dei 
incarnatione  547   581. 

Antonini  Placentini  Itinerarium  638. 

Antoninus  Honoratus  615. 

Antonius,  supposed  poet  449. 

Apelles  80   117. 

Aphraates  385—387  :  life  385,  works  386, 
literature  on  387. 

Aphthartodocetae  533    545. 

Aphthonius  596. 

Apion   118. 

Apocalypse:  Johannine  authorship  rejected 
by  Gaius,  defended  by  Hippolytus  124, 
rejected  by  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  155. 


Apocalypses,  Apocryphal  113 — 116:  Apo- 
calypse of  St.  Peter  89  113,  Apocalypsis 
Petri  per  dementem  113,  Apocalypse 
of  St.  Paul  114,  Visio  S.  Pauli  115, 
Ascension  of  St.  Paul  115,  Revelatio 
Thomae  116,  Revelatio  Stephani  116, 
Revelatio  Zachariae  116,  Apocalypsis 
Danielis  116. 

Apocatastasis :  in  Origen  152,  in  Gregory 
of  Nyssa  303  304,  in  Didymus  the  Blind 
307,  in  Evagrius  Ponticus  308  310,  not 
in  St.  John  Chrysostom  339.  See  Ori- 
genistic  controversies. 

Apocrypha,  New  Testament  85  ff:  in  ge- 
neral 85,  Apocryphal  Gospels  87  90 — 97, 
Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles  88 
97 — no,  Apocryphal  Epistles  of  the 
Apostles  89  no — 113,  Apocryphal 
Apocalypses  89. 

Apollinaris  of  Hierapolis  61. 

Apollinaris  of  Laodicea  (Junior)  242 — 244 
289;  Apollinarism  242 — 244;  Apollina- 
ristic  literature  244. 

Apollinaris  of  Laodicea  (Senior)   243. 

Apollinaris  Sidonius  603  606. 

Apollonius,  Anti-Montanist   124. 

Apollonius,  Martyr  231. 

Apologetics:  the  apologetic  literature  of 
the  second  century  44 — 72,  other  apo- 
logists of  the  primitive  patristic  period : 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  Origen,  Diony- 
sius of  Alexandria,  in  the  East  126 
127  f.;  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  Arnobius, 
Lactantius,  Hippolytus,  Commodian,  in 
the  West  178;  apologetic  literature  of 
the  second  period:  among  the  Greeks 
236,  among  the  Syrians  386,  among  the 
Latins  398 ;  apologetic  literature  of  the 
third  period:  among  the  Greeks  574, 
among  the  Armenians  589  fr,  among 
the  Latins  597  f. 

Apostles,  The  Twelve :  the  Gospel  of  the 
Twelve  91,  the  Doctrine  of  the  Twelve 
19 — 22.     See  Didache. 

Apostles,  Epistles  of,  Apocryphal  1 10 — 113: 
Epistle  to  the  Laodiceans  1 10,  Epistle 
to  the  Alexandrines  III,  Correspondence 
of  Paul  and  the  Corinthians  in,  Cor- 
respondence of  Paul  and  Senecä   112. 

Apostles,  Acts  of,  Apocryphal  97 — no: 
the  Preaching  of  Peter  and  the  Preaching 
of  Paul  97,  Acts  of  Peter  98,  Acts 
of  Paul  1005-  Acts  of  Peter  and  Paul 
10 1  ,  Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecla  102, 
Acts  of  Andrew  103  ,  Acts  of  John 
105,  Acts  of  Thomas  106,  Acts  of 
Philip  108,  Acts  of  Matthew  108,  Legend 
of  Thaddaeus   109. 

Apostles'  Creed   17. 

Apostolica  Didascalia  168 — 170;  Arabica 
and  Ethiopica  352. 

Apostolic  Canons  357. 


INDEX. 


667 


Apostolic  Church-Ordinance   160 — 162. 

Apostolic  Constitutions  238  349 — 358 :  their 
composition ,  contents ,  sources  349, 
unity  of  origin,  time  and  place  of  com- 
position 350,  their  history  351  ,  edi- 
tions, translations,  recensions  351,  the 
Arabic  and  Ethiopic  Didascalia  352, 
recensions  of  the  eighth  book  of  the  Apo- 
stolic Constitutions,  the  Constitutions 
per  Hippolytum,  the  Egyptian  Church- 
Ordinance  353,  the  eighth  book  of  the 
Apostolic  Constitutions  (continued),  the 
Testament  of  our  Lord  355,  the  Ca- 
nones  Hippolyti  356,  the  recensions  of 
the  Apostolic  Canons  357. 

Apostolic  Fathers   15. 

Apponius  628. 

Apringius  of  Pace  660. 

Apuleius  of  Madaura  418. 

Aquilius  Severus  426. 

Arabianus   1 18. 

Arator  624. 

Archelaus  of  Carchar  268. 

Areopagita,  see  Dionysius  Areopagita. 

Arethas  of  Caesarea  45. 

Arethas-Codex  45  64. 

Aristides  of  Athens  46. 

Aristo  of  Pella  48   517. 

Arius  238 ;  Arianism  and  Arian  literature 
238 — 240  257  412;  Semiarianism  and 
Semiarian  literature  240. 

Armenian  literature   589   590. 

Arnobius  201 — 203. 

Arnobius,  another  604. 

Arnobius  Junior  604. 

Arsenius  382. 

Asarbus  429. 

Asclepiades   164. 

Asclepiades  208. 

Asclepius   615. 

Asser  632. 

Asterius  of  Amasea  306. 

Asterius  the  Sophist  239. 

Asterius  Urbanus  85. 

Athanasian  Creed  255   261. 

Athanasius,  St.  253 — 263:  life  253,  works: 
apologetical  254,  dogmatic  254,  histo- 
rico-polemical  256,  exegetical  257,  as- 
cetical  258,  festal  letters  258,  Christo- 
logy  and  Trinitarian  doctrine  258,  com- 
plete editions,  translations ,  recensions 
260,  editions  translations,  recensions  of 
separate  works  261,  works  on  Athana- 
sius 263. 

Athenagoras  of  Athens :  life  64 ,  writ- 
ings 64,  characteristics  65. 

Athenodorus   175. 

Atticusof  Constantinople  348,  cp.  328  329. 

Augustine,  St.  473 — 508  :  life  to  his  baptism 
(354 — 387)  473,  after  his  baptism  (387  to 
430)475,  RetractationesandConfessiones 
477;  works:  philosophical,  apologetical 


and  dogmatic  479,  dogmatico-polemical, 
Anti-Manichaean  481,  Anti-Donatist  483, 
Anti-Pelagian  485  ,  Anti-Arian  488, 
exegetic-moral  and  pastoral-theological 
488 — 492,  sermons,  letters,  poems  492, 
conspectus  of  his  writings  494,  philo- 
sophy of  St.  Augustine  496,  his  theo- 
logy 498 ,  opposition  to  Pelagianism 
498,  complete  editions,  translations  502  ; 
editions,  translations,  recensions  of  se- 
parate works  502 — 506,  biography  and 
characteristics  of  Augustine  506,  litera- 
ture on  his  philosophy  507.  on  his  theo- 
logy 5°7- 

Aurelianus  of  Aries  612. 

Aurelius  of  Carthage   510. 

Aurelius  Prudentius  444 — 447. 

Ausonius  421. 

Auspicius  of  Toul  608. 

Auxentius,  Archimandrite   563. 

Auxentius  of  Dorostorum  412. 

Avellana  Collectio  628. 

Avitus  of  Bracara  511. 

Avitus  of  Vienne,  St.  609 — 611. 

Bacchyllus  of  Corinth   126. 

Bachiarius  511. 

Balaeus  394. 

Balsamon   1 72. 

Baptism  :  according  to  St.  Justin  Martyr  56, 
Tertullian  185  189,  St.  Cyprian  191,  Op- 
tatus  of  Milevi  399  427,  St.  Augustine 
483  486;  controversy  on  Baptism  ad- 
ministered by  heretics,  see  Heretical  Bap- 
tism; Baptism  by  single  immersion  con- 
demned by  St.  Martin   of  Bracara  659. 

Bardesanes  78. 

Barnabas,  The  so-called  Epistle  of:  con- 
tents 22,  spurious  character  23,  time  and 
place  of  composition  24;  Gospel  of  Bar- 
nabas 96. 

Barsanuphius,  St.   551. 

Bartholomew,  Gospel  of  97. 

Basil,  St.,  the  Great  274 — 285 :  his  youth 
274,  monk  and  priest  275,  metropolitan 
of  Caesarea  275,  his  works:  dogmatico- 
polemical  276,  exegetical  277,  ascetical 
278, homilies,  letters,  «Liturgy »279,  great- 
ness of  Basil  280,  his  rule  of  faith  280, 
Trinitarian  doctrine  281,  on  the  cognos- 
cibility  of  God  282,  complete  editions 
283,  editions  and  recensions  of  separate 
works  284,  versions  285,  literature  on 
St.  Basil  285. 

Basil  of  Ancyra  241. 

Basilides  73. 

Basilius  Cilix  553. 

Basilius  Minimus  293 

Basilius,  Monk  369. 

Basilius  of  Seleucia  531. 

Beatus  of  Libana  462  471. 

Bede  the  Venerable  471 ;  Pseudo  Beda  632. 


66S 


INDEX. 


Bellator  142. 

Benedict  I.,  Pope  657. 

Benedict  of  Aniane,  St.   283. 

Benedict  of  Nursia  627. 

Beron  209  219. 

Beryllus  of  Bostra  165. 

Biblical  Theology :  Biblical  text  criticism ; 
see  Origen,  Lucius  of  Samosata,  Hesy- 
chius  the  Egyptian ;  Biblical  commen- 
taries, for  the  earliest  patristic  period, 
see  those  of  Origen ,  Hippolytus  and 
Victorinus  of  Pettau ;  in  the  second  peri- 
od it  is  the  representatives  of  the  Anti- 
ochene  school  who  are  most  productive 
in  works  of  exegesis,  e.  g.  Diodorus  of 
Tarsus,  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  Poly- 
chronius,  Chrysostom  and  Theodoret  of 
Gaza ;  among  the  Syrians  Ephraem  re- 
presents similar  principles  of  biblical 
exegesis;  most  other  commentators  follow 
the  allegorical  method:  in  the  East  Eu- 
sebius  of  Caesarea,  Athanasius,  Gregory 
of  Nyssa,  Didymus  the  Blind,  Cyril  of 
Alexandria ;  in  the  West  Hilary  of  Poi- 
tiers ,  Jerome ,  Augustine.  For  Bible- 
commentaries  of  the  third  period  see 
53°  f-  598  f- ,  also  Catenae  529  &c. 
Bible  -  translations :  Jerome ,  Vulgate; 
Biblical  Hermeneutics  see  Hermeneutics; 
Biblical  Introduction,  Archaeology  and 
Geography  are  represented  by  Eusebius 
of  Caesarea,  Epiphanius,  Jerome,  Augu- 
stine, Cosmas  Indicopleustes ,  Junilius, 
Isidore  of  Seville.  See  also  Pilgrimages. 

Bibliothecae  Patrum   12. 

Blossius  Dracontius,  see  Dracontius. 

Boethius  628 — 632  ;  literature  632. 

Bolanus  165. 

Bonaventure,  St.  497. 

Bonifatius  I.,  Pope  514. 

Bonifatius  IL,  Pope  640. 

Braulio  of  Saragossa  661. 

Breviarius  de  Hierosolyma  638. 

Burgundio  of  Pisa  306. 

Caelestius  487   504. 

Caena  Cypriani  100. 

Caesarius  of  Aries,  St.  611 — 613. 

Caesarius  of  Nazianzus  294. 

Caius   124. 

Callinicus  379. 

Callisthenes  (Pseudo-)    595. 

Callixtus,  Pope  223,  cp.   186  209. 

Candidus,  Anti-Gnostic   118. 

Candidus,  Arian  412. 

Candidus,  Valentinian   148. 

Canon,  Biblical,  according  to  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia  319  320.   See  Apocalypse. 

Canons,  the  so-called  Apostolic  357  ;  col- 
lections of  Canons:  Greek  571,  Latin 
591,  Nomocanones  571. 

Capitula  of  St.  Hippolytus  124. 


Capreolus  of  Carthage  510. 

Carmen  adversus  paganos  422. 

Carmen  de  providentia  divina  514. 

Carpus,  Papylus  and  Agathonice  230. 

Cassian  515 — 518. 

Cassiodorius  132  141  633 — 636;  literature 
on  636. 

Castor  of  Apta  Julia  516  517. 

Catalogus  Felicianus  657. 

Catalogus  Liberianus  423  657. 

Catechetical  School  of  Alexandria   127. 

Catenae    257   529  535   542   570. 

Celsus   147    148. 

Cerdon  79. 

Cerealis  of  Castellum  615. 

Ceretius  of  Grenoble  519. 

Cerinthus   124. 

Chiliasm:  in  Papias  43,  in  St.  Irenaeus  120, 
in  Nepos  154 — 155,  opposed  by  Dio- 
nysius  of  Alexandria  155,  in  Lactantius 
204,  in  Commodianus  227. 

Chosrowig  592   593. 

Christology  :  of  St,  Irenaeus  121,  St.  Atha- 
nasius 258  f.,  Diodorus  of  Tarsus  317, 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  321,  St.  Chryso- 
stom 340,  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  317 
365,  Theodoret  of  Cyrus  371,  Aphraates 
386,  St.  Ephrem  390,  St.  Hilary  408, 
Prudentius  445,  St.  Leo  the  Great  524, 
Leontius  of  Byzantium  545 — 546,  St. 
Maximus  Confessor  576 — 577.  See  Lo- 
gos, Trinitarian  Doctrine. 

Christus  Patiens  290  293. 

Chromatius  of  Aquileia  444. 

Chronicles.,  see  Historical  Theology. 

Chronicon  imperiale  514. 

Chronicon  integrum  513. 

Chronicon  paschale   555. 

Chronicon  vulgatum  513. 

Chronographer  of  the  year  354:  423. 

Chrysologus,   St.  Peter  526. 

Chrysostom,  St.  John  323 — 347:  life  before 
ordination  to  priesthood  323,  preacher  at 
Antioch  324,  patriarch  of  Constantinople 
324,  Chrysostom  and  Eutropius  324, 
Chrysostom  and  Eudoxia  325,  continua- 
tion and  end  of  the  Chrysostom-tragedy 
327,  his  works:  exegetical  homilies 
329,  other  discourses  331,  apologetico- 
moral  and  ascetico-moral  writings  333, 
letters  336,  spurious  writings  336,  Chryso- 
stom as  homilist  337,  his  doctrine 
339,  complete  editions  and  editions  of 
separate  works  343 ,  translations  345, 
literature  on  Chrysostom  346  ,  Vitae 
S.  Johannis  Chrysostomi  348   562. 

Church,  The,  concept  and  essence  of:  ac- 
cording to  St.  Ignatius  of  Antioch  33, 
St.  Cyprian  192,  St.  Pacian  of  Barce- 
lona 425,  Optatus  of  Milevi  426,  St.  Au- 
gustine 484  f.,  relations  of  Church  and 
State    according    to    St.    Ambrose    432, 


INDEX. 


669 


according  to  St.  Augustine  484;  Ec- 
clesiastical Jurisdiction,  see  Penance; 
Ecclesiastical  Hierarchy:  according  to 
St.  Clement  of  Rome  26,  St.  Ignatius  of 
Antioch  32,  Pseudo-Dionysius-Areopagita 
536;  primacy  of  the  Roman  Church  :  in 
St.  Clement  of  Rome  27,  St.  Ignatius  of 
Antioch  33,  St.  Cyprian  193,  Optatus  of 
Milevi  426,  St.  Jerome  469,  St.  Leo  the 
Great  523,  St.  Peter  Chrysologus  526, 
St.  Avitus  of  Vienne  609,  Ennodius  of 
Pavia  623. 

Church,  Doctors  of  the  2. 

Church  History,    see  Historical  Theology. 

Church,  Fathers  of  the ;  see  Fathers. 

Church-Ordinances,  the  so-called  Apostolic 
160  —  162;  the  Egyptian  353. 

Cicero  204  398  436  474  480  629  632. 

Claudianus,  Poet  383. 

Claudianus  Mamertus  603. 

Claudius  Claudianus  383  445  603  607. 

Claudius  Marius  Victor  450. 

Clement  of  Alexandria  127 — 135:  life  127, 
writings  128:  the  Protrepticus ,  Paed- 
agogus.  Stromata  129,  Hypotyposes  132, 
Quis  dives  salvetur  132,  works  known 
only  by  citations  and  fragments  132,  i 
his  doctrinal  views   133. 

Clement  of  Rome,  St.  25 — 30:  life  25,  Epistle  I 
to  the  Corinthians  26,  the  two  Epistolae 
ad  Virgines  29 ;  Apocalypsis  Petri  per 
dementem  114;  Apostolic  Constitutions 
238  349  368 ;  Clementinae  or  Clemen- 
tines, the  so-called  82 — 84. 

Cleobius   112. 

Climacus,  Johannes  572. 

Codex  Fuldensis  60. 

Codex  Vercellensis  417. 

Codex  Arethae,  see  Arethas-Codex. 

Coelestine  L,  Pope,   St.   514. 

Cohortatio  ad  Gentiles  53. 

Collectio  Avellana  628. 

Collectio  Dionysiana  625. 

Comma  Iohanneum  429. 

Commodian :  life  225,  Instructiones  225, 
Carmen  Apologeticum  226,  summary 
226. 

Consentius  607. 

Constantius  of  Antioch  349. 

Constitutions,  the  so-called  Apostolic,  see 
Apostolic  Constitutions. 

Consubstantial,  see  Y)p.ooutnog. 

Corinthians,  Apocryphal  Letter  to   1 1 1 . 

Coriun  (Koriun)    592. 

Cornelius,  Pope,  St.  200  223. 

Corpus  scriptorum  eccles.  latinorum   13. 

Cosmas  Indicopleustes   555   556. 

Cosmas  Monachus  (Junior)   569. 

Cosmas  Melodos,  St.   568. 

Creationism,  see  Soul. 

Creed,  the  Apostles'    17. 

Creed,  the  Athanasian  255   261. 


Crescentius  642. 

Crisias,   poem  641. 

Cyprian,  St.  190 — 20i:life  190,  writings  192, 
their  Ms.-tradition  193,  characteristics 
193,  treatises  194 — 196,  letters  196, 
spurious  writings   1 98. 

Cyprian  of  Antioch  383. 

Cyprian  of  Gaul  201   419. 

Cyril,  St.,  of  Alexandria  360 — 369  :  life  (to 
428)  360,  the  conflict  with  Nestorianism 
361,  his  work  against  Julian  362,  dogma- 
tico-polemical  writings  362 ,  exegetical 
writings  364,  homilies  and  letters  365, 
Christology  365,  spurious  works  366,  com- 
plete editions,  editions  of  separate  works, 
early  translations  367,  later  translations 
and  recensions  368,  literature  on  Cyril 
368,  friends  and  allies  of  Cyril  369, 
adversaries  of  Cyril  370. 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  St.  271 — 273:  life  271, 
the  Catecheses  271,  other  writings  273, 
literature  on  273. 

Cyril  of  Scythopolis  557. 

Cyrillonas  394. 

Cyrus  383. 

Dalmatius  369. 

Damasus,  Pope,   St.  421. 

Daniel  of  Raithu  572   573. 

David,  the  Armenian  593. 

De  Ecclesia,  cento  421. 

De  Evangelio,  poem  417. 

De  Iesu  Christo  Deo  et  homine,  poem  417. 

De  Iona,  poem   190  420. 

De  iudicio  Domini  (De  resurrectione  mor- 
tuorum),  poem    190. 

De  laudibus  Domini,  poem  419. 

De  martyrio  Macchabaeorum,  poem  417. 

De  monarchia  53. 

De  morte  Peregrini,  romance  34. 

De  Pascha  (De  ligno  vitae,  De  cruce), 
poem  417. 

De  rebaptismate  98   100. 

De  Sodoma,  poem   190  420. 

De  Verbi  incarnatione,  cento  421. 

De  vocatione  omnium  gentium  515. 

Demetrius  of  Alexandria   136. 

Dexter  426. 

Diadochus  of  Photice  382. 

Dialogus  Athanasii  et  Zachaei  49. 

Dialogus  de  recta  in  Deum  fide   167. 

Dialogus  Papisci  et  Philonis  Iudaeorum 
cum  quodam  monacho  581. 

Dialogus  Timothei  et  Aquilae  49. 

Diatessaron   59. 

Dictinius  429. 

Didache  or  Doctrine  of  the  Twelve  Apo- 
stles 1 9  f.:  contents  19,  time  and  place 
of  composition  20,  history  20,  litera- 
ture on  21. 

Didascalia,  The  so-called  Apostolic  168  to 
170;  Arabic  andEthiopic  Didascalia  352. 


670 


INDEX. 


Didymus  the  Blind  307—309:  life  307, 
writings  308,  literature  on  309. 

Diodorus  of  Tarsus  315 — 318 :  life  315, 
writings  316,  doctrine  317  361,  litera- 
ture on  318. 

Diognetus,  Epistle  to  68. 

Dionysiana  Collectio  625. 

Dionysius  of  Alexandria  153 — 157:  life 
153,  writings  154,  principal  treatises, 
letters  156. 

Dionysius  Areopagita,  The  supposed  535 
to  541,  writings  of  the  Pseudo-Areo- 
pagite  535  577,  controversy  concerning 
their  authorship  537,  actual  state  of  the 
question  539. 

Dionysius  Exiguus  357  625  626. 

Dionysius  of  Corinth   125. 

Dionysius,  Pope,  St.  224,  cp.  155. 

Dioscurus  of  Alexandria  371   376. 

Doctrina  Addaei  109. 

Dogma:  in  general  the  dogmatic  literature 
of  Christian  Antiquity  serves  an  apo- 
logetic or  polemical  purpose,  and  does 
not  exceed  the  limits  of  the  doctrine 
in  question ;  see  Apologetics.  The  ear- 
liest systematization  of  dogma  dates  from 
Origen,  Theognostus  of  Alexandria  and 
Lactantius ;  a  complete  system  of  ec- 
clesiastical dogma  produced  by  St.  John  of 
Damascus  584 ;  compendious  accounts 
of  Christian  doctrine  prepared  by  Theo- 
doret  of  Cyrus  237  374,  St.  Augustine 
399481,  St.FulgentiusofRuspe  598  617. 

Dogma,  History  of  5. 

Domninus   126. 

Domnulus  624. 

Donatism  426. 

Donatus  of  Casae  Nigrae  426. 

Donatus  the  Great  426. 

Dorotheus,  Abbot  573. 

Dositheus  73. 

Dracontius  618  —  620. 

Duae  Viae   161. 

Easter  Controversies    J 19    122    125    126; 

Brito-Roman  Controversy   157. 
Ebionites   81. 

Ebionites,  Gospel  of  81   91. 
Edessa,  School  of  384. 
Egyptian  Church  Ordinance  354. 
Egyptians,  Gospel  of  92. 
Elkesaites  81. 
Eleutherus  (Eleutherius),Pope,  St.  117  118 

119   125. 
Eleutherus  (Eleutherius)    of  Tournay,    St. 

612. 
Elias  of  Crete  289. 
Elische,  St.  594. 
Elpidius,  Bishop  660. 
Elpidius  (Helpidius),  Poet  624. 
Elxai,  Book  of  81. 
Encratites  81   92. 


Endelechius  449. 
Ennodius  of  Pavia  622. 
Ephraem  of  Antioch  551. 
Ephraem  Syrus,    St.    387- 


■393:    Hfe  387, 


works:  their  preservation  388,  prose  writ- 
ings or  biblical  commentaries  388,  me- 
trical writings  or  discourses  and  hymns 
389,  the  Roman  edition  of  the  works  of 
Ephraem,  additions  to  the  same,  trans- 
lations into  German  391 — 393,  literature 
on  Ephraem  393. 

Epiphanes  76. 

Epiphanius,  St.,  of  Constantia  310 — 314: 
life  310,  works:  polemical  312,  biblico- 
archeological  313,  spurious  313,  letters 
313,  works  on  Epiphanius  313,  edi- 
tions, translations  and  recensions  314. 

Epiphanius  Scholasticus  532   557  636. 

Epistola  ad  Demetriadem  515   525. 

Epistola  ad  Diognetum  68. 

Epistola  ad  Zenam  et  Serenum  54. 

Epitomes,  Clementine  83. 

Erasmus  7  435. 

Eschatology  of  Origen  1 52 ;  of  St.  Gregory  of 
Nyssa  302 — 304.  See  Apocatastasis,  Re- 
surrection, Chiliasm. 

Etheria  425. 

Eucharist,  The  Blessed:  in  St.  Justin  Martyr 
56,  in  St.  Cyprian  197,  in  Eusebius  of 
Caesarea  248,  in  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem 
272,  in  St.  Chrysostom  (Doctor  Euchari- 
stiae)  341  342,  in  Balaeus  395,  in  St. 
John  Damascene  585. 

Eucherius  of  Lyons,   St.   518   519. 

Eudocia,  Empress  383. 

Eudoxia,  Empress  325   328. 

Eugenius  of  Carthage  615. 

Eugenius  II.  of  Toledo  619. 

Eugippius  Abbas  626. 

Eulogius  of  Alexandria  575. 

Eunomius  of  Cyzicus  239   240. 

Euphronius  of  Autun  520. 

Eusebius  of  Alexandria  370. 

Eusebius  of  Caesarea  245 — 252:  life  245, 
works:  historical  246  378,  exegetical 
241  247,  apologetical  248.  dogmatic, 
letters ,  homilies ,  complete  editions, 
translations,  literature  on  Eusebius  249, 
editions  and  recensions  of  separate 
writings  250   252. 

Eusebius  of  Dorylaeum  525. 

Eusebius  of  Emesa  241. 

Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  239. 

Eusebius  of  Thessalonica  575. 

Eusebius  of  Vercellae  (Vercelli),  St.  417. 

Eustathius  Afer  285. 

Eustathius  of  Antioch,   St.  246  252. 

Eustathius  of  Epiphania  552. 

Eustathius  Monachus  548. 

Eustathius  of  Sebaste  276  286. 

Eustratius  of  Constantinople  561. 

Euthalius  535. 


INDEX. 


67I 


Eutherius  of  Tyana  375. 
Eutropius  of  Valencia  664. 
Eutyches   522   526. 
Eutychianism  (Monophysitism)   522. 
Eutychius  of  Constantinople  561. 
Evagrius  of  Antioch  258. 
Evagrius  of  Gaul  517. 
Evagrius  Ponticus  309  310. 
Evagrius  Scholasticus  554. 
Evodius  of  Uzalum   104. 
Exegesis,  see  Biblical  Theology. 
Exegetical  school  of  Alexandria  235. 
Exegetical  school  of  Antioch  235   236. 
Exhortatio  poenitendi,  poem  565. 
Expositio  fidei  seu  De  Trinitate  54. 
Eznik  593. 

Fabian,  Pope,   St.   223. 

Facundus  of  Hermiane  618  638. 

Faith:  source  and  rule  of  the  true  Faith 
according  to  St.  Irenaeus  120,  Faith  and 
Knowledge  according  to  Clement  of 
Alexandria  134,  Rule  of  Faith  in  St. 
Basil  280,  proximate  rule  of  Faith  ac- 
cording to  St.  Jerome  469,  Faith  and 
Knowledge  according  to  St.  Augustine 
497,  the  Catholic  rule  of  Faith  according 
to  Vincentius  of  Lerins  531. 

Fastidius   5. 

Fastidius  505. 

Fathers  of  the  Church,  Ecclesiastical  Writ- 
ers, Doctors  of  the  Church  2 ;  their 
period  4 ;  repertories  of  patristic  litera- 
ture 9 — II;  complete  editions  of  the 
Fathers  12;  general  collections  of  trans- 
lations  13. 

Faustinus  414. 

Faustus  of  Riez  (Regi)  600 — 603 :  life 
600,  writings  548  600,  literature  on  602. 

Felix  I.,  Pope,  St.  224. 

Felix  III.,  Pope  621. 

Felix  IV.,  Pope  640  657. 

Felix,  Abbot  640. 

Ferrandus,  see  Fulgentius  Ferrandus. 

Ferreolus  of  Uzes  650. 

Festal  Letters   156  258. 

Filioque,  The :  in  St.  Basil  the  Great  282, 
in  St.  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  292.  See 
Holy  Ghost. 

Firmicus  Maternus  401   402. 

Firmilian  of  Caesarea  (Cappadocia)    175 

Firmus  of  Caesarea  370. 

Flavian  of  Antioch  316  318. 

Flavian  of  Constantinople    525. 

Flavius  Philostratus  249  252. 

Florentius  413. 

Florinus  77    122. 

Fortunatianus  of  Aquileia  407. 

Fortunatus  (Venantius)  647—650,  cp.  599. 

Fronto  of  Cirta  71. 

Fulgentius  Ferrandus  616  618  639. 

Fulgentius  of  Ruspe,  St.  548  616 — 618. 


Gaianites  575. 

Gallus,  St.  643. 

Gaudentius  of  Brescia  431. 

Gelasian  Sacramentary  621   622. 

Gelasius  I.,  Pope,  St.  422  620  621. 

Gelasius  of  Caesarea  274. 

Gelasius  of  Cyzicus   534. 

Generationism,  see  Soul. 

Gennadius  of  Constantinople  533. 

Gennadius  of  Marseilles  8  608  609. 

George  563. 

George  589. 

George  II.  of  Alexandria  562. 

George  of  Laodicea  241. 

George  of  Lapathus  557. 

Georgius  Pisides  565   566. 

Germanus  of  Constantinople,  St.  304  581 
582. 

Germanus  of  Paris,    St.   650. 

Gerson,  John  632. 

Gesta  Pilati  97. 

Gilbert  de  la  Porree  632. 

Gildas  Sapiens  637. 

Gnostic  literature  72  f. :  introductory  re- 
marks 72,  Basilides  and  Isidore  73,  the 
Ophites  or  «Agnostics»  74,  the  Carpo- 
cratians  76,  Valentine  and  the  Valen- 
tinians  76,  Bardesanes  and  Harmonius 
78,  Marcion  and  Apelles  79,  the  Encra- 
tites  81. 

God,  Etymology  of,  in  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa 
301  ;  divine  unity  proved  from  reason 
by  Athenagoras  65  ;  natural  knowledge 
of  God  according  to  Tertullian  183; 
existence  of  God  proved  from  reason  by 
St.  Augustine  496  497;  how  man  may 
know  God,  according  to  St.  Basil  282. 
See  Trinity. 

Gondophares   107. 

Gospel-harmonies:  of  Tatian  59,  of  Am- 
monius  of  Alexandria  60,  of  Eusebius 
of  Caesarea  248. 

Gospels,  Apocryphal  87  90;  a  papyrus- 
fragment  90;  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews 
87  90,  Gospel  of  the  Twelve  and  the 
Gospel  of  the  Ebionites  81  87  91, 
Gospel  of  the  Egyptians  92,  Gospel  of 
Peter  93,  Gospels  of  Matthias,  of  Philip, 
of  Thomas  94,  The  Proto-Gospel  (Prot- 
evangelium)  of  James  87  95,  Gospel  of 
Andrew,  of  Barnabas,  of  Bartholomew 
96,  origins  of  the  Pilate-literature  97, 
Gospel  of  Apelles  80  87,  Gospel  of  Ba- 
silides 73  87,  Gospel  of  Judas  74,  Gos 
pel  of  Marcion  80,  Gospel  according  to 
Mary  (Magdalen?)  75,  Gospel  of  Nico- 
demus  97,  Gospel  of  Truth  87. 

Gottfried  of  Auxerre  632. 

Grace :  according  to  the  Pelagians  485 ; 
the  doctrine  of  St.  Jerome  465,  of  St. 
Augustine  498  f.,  of  St.  Prosper  of  Aqui- 
taine   512,   of   St.  Fulgentius    of  Ruspe 


672 


INDEX. 


618;  the  Semi-Pelagian  doctrine  of  Jo- 
hannes Cassianus  517,  of  Vincentius  of 
Lerins  521,  of  Faustus  of  Riez  (Reji) 
601.     See  Original  Sin. 

Gratian,  Emperor  430  437. 

Gregentius,  St.   551. 

Gregory  of  Antioch   554. 

Gregory  of  Eliberis  (Elvira)  415. 

Gregory  of  Girgenti,  St.   561. 

Gregory  Illuminator,  St.   590  591. 

Gregory  the  Great,  Pope,  St.  650—657: 
life  650,  writings  652,  general  view  of 
his  writings  654,  complete  and  partial 
editions,  translations,  recensions  655,  li- 
terature on  Gregory  656. 

Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  St.,  the  Theologian 
286 — 294 :  before  his  ordination  to  the 
priesthood  274  275  286;  priest  and 
bishop  287,  at  Constantinople  287,  his 
discourses  288,  letters  and  poems  289, 
character  290,  Trinitarian  doctrine  291, 
complete  editions  of  his  works  292,  new 
editions  and  recensions  of  separate 
works  292,  ancient  commentaries  on  his 
homilies  and  poems  293,  translations  of 
Gregory  294,  literature  on  Gregory  294. 

Gregory  ofNyssa,  St.  295 — 306:  life  295, 
works :  exegetical  296,  dogmatico-spe- 
culative  297,  ascetical  299,  homilies  and 
letters  299,  theological  importance  of 
Gregory  300,  Trinitarian  doctrine  300, 
Gregory  on  the  Resurrection  302,  and 
the  future  life  304,  editions  of  Gregory 
304,  translations  304,  spurious  writings 
305   306,  literature  on  306. 

Gregory  Thaumaturgus ,  St.  170 — 175: 
life  170,  writings  171,  works:  genuine 
171,  doubtful   173,  spurious   174. 

Gregory  of  Tours,  St.  643 — 647. 

Gundaphorus   107. 

Hadrian,  see  Adrian. 

Harmonius   78. 

Hebrews,  Gospel  of  the  87  90. 

Hegemon ius  268. 

Hegesippus   116, 

Hegesippus,  The  so-called  423. 

Helpidius  (Elpidius)  624. 

Henry,  Pseudo-Henry  of  Ghent  8. 

Heraclas  of  Alexandria  136 — 137. 

Heracleon  77  78  98. 

Heraclianus,  Anti-Arian  416. 

Heraclianus  of  Chalcedon  551. 

Heraclitus   118. 

Heresy  :  rejected  as  such  by  Tertullian  184, 
histories  of  heresy  by  St.  Justin  Martyr  52, 
Pseudo-Tertullian  190,  St.  Hippolytus  208 
213,  St.  Epiphanius  312,  Theodoret  373, 
Philastrius  430,  St.  Augustine  48 1 ,  Anasta- 
sius  Sinaita  580,  St.Germanus  of  Constan- 
tinople 581,  St.  John  of  Damascus  584, 
the  author  of  Praedestinatus  604,  Libe- 


ratus  of  Carthage  64 1.  See  the  work  on  re- 
conciliation of  heretics  by  Timotheus 
of  Constantinople  575.  Relation  oi  Patro- 
logy  to  heretical  literature  5. 

Heretical  Baptism  i.  e.  Baptism  admini- 
stered by  heretics :  controversy  concerning 
191  f.,  invalid  according  to  Tertullian 
185  189,  and  the  Donatists  426  483, 
S.  Cyprian  191  198,  valid  according  to 
Pope  St.  Stephen  191,  the  author  of 
De  rebaptismate  199,  Optatus  of  Milevi 
427,  St.  Augustine  483.  (On  Dionysius 
of  Alexandria   157.) 

Hermas,  The  Shepherd  of  38 — 43:  con- 
tents 38,  origin  39,  history  41,  tradition 
and  editions  41,  latest  literature  on  the 
«Shepherd»   42. 

Hermeneutics,  Biblical :  manuals  by  Adria- 
nus  237  379,  St.  Augustine  400  488,  ex- 
position of  biblical  phraseology  by  Pseudo- 
Melito63,Tichonius  471,  St.  Eucherius  of 
Lyons  518,  hermeneutical  principles  of 
Origen  146,  of  the  Alexandrine  school 
235 ,  of  the  Antiochene  school  235, 
Diodorus  of  Tarsus  317,  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia  320,  St.  John  Chrysostom 
338,  Theodoret  of  Cyrus  373,  St.  Isi- 
dore of  Pelusium  379,  St.  Ephraem  Sy- 
rus  389,  St.  Hilary  of  Poitiers  407,  St. 
Ambrose  435,  St.  Jerome  463,  St.  Au- 
gustine 490,  Victor  of  Antioch   535. 

Hermias  69. 

Hermippus,  dialogue   544. 

Hermogenes   184. 

Hero  of  Antioch  30. 

Hesychius,   bishop   160. 

Hesychius  of  Egypt   160. 

Hesychius  of  Jerusalem  238  377  380  381. 

Hesychius  of  Miletus  554  555. 

Hexapla   139    140. 

Hierakas   160. 

Hierarchy,  Ecclesiastical,  see  Church. 

Hierocles,  Grammarian   557. 

Hierocles,  Procurator  of  Bithynia  248. 

Hieronymus,St.455— 473:life(to379)455, 
at  Constantinople  and  Rome  (329 — 385) 
456,  at  Bethlehem  (386 — 420)  458,  trans- 
lates the  Scriptures  459,  other  exege- 
tical works  248  461,  historical  writings 
246  463,  dogmatico-polemical  464,  let- 
ters and  homilies  465,  scholarship  467, 
witness  to  Faith  of  the  Church  468, 
master  of  Christian  prose  469,  com- 
plete editions,  translations  470,  editions, 
translations,  recensions  of  separate  works 
470,  literature  on  Hieronymus  473 

Hieronymus  of  Jerusalem  377. 

Hierotheus  541. 

Hilarianus  453. 

Hilarius,  Poet  417. 

Hilarius,  Pope  603  621. 

Hilarius  of  Aries  241    519. 


INDEX. 


673 


Hilarius  of  Gaul  417- 

Hilary  of  Poitiers,  St.  402—411 :  life  402, 
de  Trinitate  404,  style  404,  historico- 
polemical  works  405,    exegetical  works 

407,  hymns  408,   Christological  doctrine 

408,  complete  editions,  editions  of  se- 
parate works ,  translations  ,  recensions 
410,  literature  on  Hilary  411,  Vita  S. 
Hilarii  Pictav.   649. 

Hilary  of  Provence  511. 

Hilary  of  Rome  415. 

Hippolytus,  St.  208 — 219:  life  208,  works: 
Philosophumena  212,  apologetic  and  dog- 
matic 215,  exegetical  and  homiletic  216 
581,  chronographical ,  canonical  219, 
odes  219,  spurious  writings  219,  Cano- 
nes  Hippolyti  356,  Constitutiones  per 
Hippolyium  354. 

Histona  monachorum  in  Egypto  381. 

Historical  Theology:  a  general  history  of 
the  Church  was  unknown  to  the  first 
three  centuries;  first  cultivated  by  the 
Greeks :  Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  Socra 
tes,  Sozomen,  Theodoret,  Philostorgius 
Philippus  Sidetes,  Hesychius  of  Jerusalem 
Timotheus  of  Berytus,  Theodorus  Lee 
tor,  Zacharias  Rhetor,  Evagrius  Scho 
lasticus.  Much  less  was  accomplished  by 
the  Latin  writers  :  Rufinus,  St.  Sulpicius 
Severus,  Orosius,  Cass#odorius.  Ecclesia- 
stical history  among  the  Latins  soon  de- 
generated into  mere  chronicles :  St.  Hiero- 
nymus,  St.  Prosper  of  Aquitaine,  Hydatius, 
Marcellinus  Comes,  Cassiodorius,  Victor 
of  Tunnuna,  Johannes  of  Biclaro,  Marius 
of  Avenches.  Greek  Chronicles  were 
written  by  Eusebius  of  Caesarea  and  the 
author  of  the  Chronicon  Paschale ;  Jo- 
hannes of  Nikiu  probably  wrote  in  Cop- 
tic. Ecclesiastical  histories  of  particular 
peoples  or  countries  composed  by  Cassio- 
dorius, St.  Gregory  of  Tours,  St.  Isidore  of 
Seville,  Moses  ofChorene;  Histories  of 
Councils  by  Sabinus  of  Heraclea,  Ana- 
stasius  Sinaita,  St.Germanus  of  Constanti- 
nople. For  histories  of  heresies  see  He- 
resy. Histories  of  theological  literature 
by  St  Hieronymus,  Gennadius  of  Marseil- 
les, St.  Isidore  of  Seville.  For  lives  of 
saints  see  Vitae  Sanctorum.  For  acts  of 
martyrs  see  Acta  martyrum.  Philosophy 
and    History    treated    by    St.  Augustine 

479- 
Holy  Ghost:  His  distinct  personality  denied 
by  Lactantius  204,  divinity  denied  by 
Macedonians  240,  denied  by  Eunomians 
277  297,  defended  by  St.  Athanasius  255 
260,  St.  Basil  the  Great  277  281,  St.  Gre- 
gory of  Nazianzus  288  292,  St.  Gregory  of 
Nyssa  298  299  302,  Uidymus  the  Blind 
308, St.  Ambrose  437,  St.Jerome465,  Fau- 
stus  of  Riez  (Reji)  600,  Paschasius  Dia- 
Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrology. 


conus  600.  Procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
according  to  St.  Athanasius  260,  St. 
Gregory  of  Nazianzus  292,  St.  Gregory 
of  Nyssa  302. 

Homerites  (Himjarites)  5.51. 

Homiletics  and  Catechetics  :  manuals  of  St. 
Augustine  400  492,  eminent  homilists 
and  catechists  238  400  531  599,  com- 
parison of  St.  Chrysostom  and  St.  Au- 
gustine 338. 

Homilies,   Clementine,  see  Clementinae. 

Homoousia  of  the  Son  with  the  Father, 
see  V/jLOouffcog. 

Honoratus  of  Aries,   St.   518. 

Honoratus  of  Constantia  615. 

Honoratus  of  Marseilles  520. 

Honorius  of  Augustodunum  (Autun)   8. 

Hormisdas,  Pope,  St.   548  621. 

Hosius  of  Cordova  412. 

Hydatius,  chronicler  614. 

Hydatius  of  Emerita  429  430. 

Hymenaeus  of  Jerusalem   165. 

Hypatius,  Abbot  379. 

Hypotyposes  of, Clement  of  Alexandria  129. 

Ibas  of  Edessa  370. 

Idacius,  see  Hydatius: 

Ignatius  of  Antioch,   St.  30 — 35  :  tradition 

of   Seven  Epistles  30,   contents    32   33, 

genuineness  34,  spurious  epistles  30  245. 
Ildephonsus  of  Toledo,   St.   8  660. 
In  Genesin  ad  Leonem  papam,  poem  417. 
Innocent  I.,  Pope,  St.  514. 
Innocentius  of  Maronia  546. 
Irenaeus  of  Lyons,  St.  n  8 — 123:  life  118, 

Adversus  haereses  119,  other  works  122. 
Isaac  the  Great  369  370  591    592. 
Isaac,  a  convert  Jew  441. 
Isaac  of  Antioch,   St.  396  397. 
Isaac  of  Ninive,   St.   397. 
Isaias,   abbot  268. 
Isidore  of  Cordova  511. 
Isidore,  a  Gnostic  74. 
Isidore,  St.,  of  Pelusium  379    380. 
Isidore  of  Seville,  St.  8  641   660—664. 
Itacius  (?)  429. 
Itala    Version,    Old    (Codex    Vercellensis) 

417. 
Ithacius  of  Ossonoba  429. 
Itinerarium  a  Burdigala  Hierusalem  usque 

400  424. 
Itinerarium  Antonini  Placentini  638. 

Jacobus,  see  Protevangelium  Jacobi. 

Jacobus  of  Edessa  542. 

Jacobus  of  Nisibis  385  391. 

Jerome,  see  Hieronymus. 

Jeu,  Books  of  75. 

Jexai,  Book  of  81. 

Job,  bishop  245   551. 

Job,  monachus   551. 

Johannes,  The  Apostle,  see  Apocalypse. 

43 


674 


INDEX. 


Johannes,  Acts  of  105;  Historia    ecclesia- 
stica  de  Johanne  Apostolo  et  Evangelista 
106. 
Johannes  IL,  Pope  640. 

Johannes  III.,  Pope   657. 

Johannes,    disciple  of  St.  Epiphanius  313. 

Johannes  of  Antioch,  chronicler  554  555. 

Johannes  of  Antioch,  patriarch  362  370. 

Johannes  of  Biclaro  637. 

Johannes  Burgundio  306. 

Johannes  Cassianus  515 — 518. 

Johannes  of  Carpathus  573. 

Johannes  Chrysostomus,  St.  see  Chrysostom. 

Johannes  Climacus,  St.  572. 

Johannes  of  Damascus,  St.  582 — 589:  of- 
fice and  importance  582 ,  life  583, 
works:  dogmatic  583,  polemical  585, 
exegetic  and  historic  587,  homilies  588, 
literature  588;  poetry  568. 

Johannes  Diaconus  656. 

Johannes  the  Faster  (Nesteutes)   571. 

Johannes  II.  of  Jerusalem  311  315. 

Johannes  of  Majuma  541. 

Johannes  Malalas  554  555. 

Johannes  Mandakuni  594. 

Johannes  Maxentius  548. 

Johannes  Monachus  563. 

Johannes  Monachus  (junior)   569. 

Johannes  Moschus,  St.  559  560. 

Johannes  of  Nikiü  555   570. 

Johannes  Notarius  370. 

Johannes  Philoponus  544. 

Johannes  of  Raithu  572. 

Johannes  Scholasticus  571. 

Johannes  of  Scythopolis  551. 

Johannes  Trithemius  8. 

John  of  Tambach  632. 

Jordanis  637. 

Josephus  Flavius  423  454. 

Josephus  Hymnographus  565. 

Jovinian  465   472. 

Judaistic  Literature  81—85:  Ebionites  81, 
Elcesaites  8 1 ,  the  so-called  Clementines  82. 

Judas   109. 

Judas,  Gospel  of  74. 

Iudicium  secundum  Petrum  (ludicium 
Petri)  161. 

Julian  the  Apostate  234  254  390. 

Julian  of  Eclanum  339  485  486  504. 

Julian  of  Halicarnassus  533. 

Julianists  (Aphthartodocetae)  533  545. 

Julianus  Pomerius  612. 

Julius  L,  Pope,  St.  253  264. 

Julius  Africanus  162— 164:  life  162,  Chrono- 
graphia  163  246,  xsaroc,  «Embroidered 
Girdles»  163,  letters  164,  dubious  and  spu- 
rious writings   164  662. 

Julius  Cassianus  81   92. 

Julius  Hilarianus  453. 

Junilius  642. 

Justin  Martyr,  St.  49— 57:  life  49,  writings 
49»    the    two    Apologies   50,    Dialogue 


with  the  Jew  Trypho  51,  lost  writings 
52,  spurious  works  54,  the  genuine 
writings  55  ;  Acta  SS.  Justini  et  Socio- 
rum  230. 

Justinian,  Emperor  549  550. 

Justinian  of  Valencia  660. 

Justus  of  Urgel  660. 

Juvencus  419. 

Koriun  392.   See  Moses  of  Chorene. 

Labubna   109. 

Lactantius  203  —  208:  life  203,  works  203, 
Divinae  Institutiones  204,  Epitome  div. 
inst.,  De  opificio  Dei,  De  ira  Dei  206, 
De  mortibus  persecutorum  206,  De  ave 
Phoenice  207,  spurious  poems  207,  lost 
writings  208,  fragments  208. 

Lampridius  607. 

Laodicenses,  Epistola  ad   in. 

Lapsi,  treatment  of  the   191    197   220. 

Latronianus  429. 

Laurentius  Mellifiuus  624. 

Laurentius  of  Milan  624. 

Laurentius  of  Novara  624. 

Lazarus  of  Pharp  595. 

Leander  of  Seville,  St.  660. 

Leo  L,  Pope,  St.  522 — 526:  life  522, 
writings  523,  literature  on   525. 

Leo,  poet  607. 

Leo  the  Isaurian  582. 

Leonidas   104. 

Leontius  of  Aries  603. 

Leontius  of  Byzantium  245   544 — 547. 

Leontius  of  Naples  (Neapolis)   561. 

Leontius  of  Rome  561. 

Leporius,  monk  510. 

Leucius  (Leucius  Charinus)   88  99   104. 

Liber  Pontificalis  657. 

Liberatus  of  Carthage  641. 

Liberius,  Pope  264. 

Licinianus  of  Carthagena  664. 

Liturgies:  Liturgy  of  St.  Basil  the  Great 
280  284,  of  St.  John  Chrysostom  337 
344,  Ethiopic  Oratio  Eucharistica  Sancti 
Ioannis  Chrys.  337  344.  See  Liturgy  of 
the  so-called  Apostolic  Constitutions 
(viii,  6—15)  349. 

Logia  Iesu  92. 

Logos,  the  :  köyoq  (mspßazuoq  in  St.  Justin 
Martyr  56,  Procession  of  the  Logos  in 
Tatian  58.     See  Christology. 

Lucian  of  Samosata,  a  satirist  34. 

Lucian  of  Samosata,  a  priest  165  238;  Syl- 
lucianists  239. 

Lucianus  of  Kaphar  Gamala  511. 

Lucidus  600  602. 

Lucifer  of  Calaris  413. 

Lucius  I.,  Pope,  St.  224. 

Lucretius  202. 

Lupus  of  Troyes,  St.   520. 


INDEX. 


675 


Macarius,  St.,  the  Alexandrine  266  267. 

Macarius,  St.,  the  Egyptian  266  267  382. 

Macarius  Magnes  376  377. 

Macedonianism  240. 

Macedonius  240. 

Macrobius  427. 

Malalas  554. 

Malchion  of  Antioch   165. 

Mamertus,   Claudianus  603. 

Mani  237. 

Manichaeism  237  268  482;  its  Greek  op- 
ponents in  the  second  Patristic  period 
268—271. 

Marcellinus  414. 

Marcellinus  Comes  637. 

Marcellus  of  Ancyra  241   242  249;   Säbel-    | 
lianism  241   242. 

Marcianus  563. 

Marcion   79    117. 

Marcus  Diaconus  347. 

Marcus  Diadochus  382. 

Marcus  Eremita  382. 

Maria,  The  Blessed  Virgin :  spurious  corre- 
spondence with  St.  Ignatius  of  Antioch  3 1 
32,  Mariology  of  St.  Irenaeus  121,  sin- 
lessness  of  Mary,  according  to  St.  Ephraem 
Syrus  391,  virginity  of  Mary  according 
to  the  same  391,  according  to  St.  Je- 
rome 465 ,  Mary  Mother  of  God  ac- 
cording to  St.  Ephraem  Syrus  344,  the 
term  fisoToxog  in  Pierius  of  Alex- 
andria (?)  158,  in  Alexander  of  Alex- 
andria 263  ;  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  re- 
jects this  term  321,  likewise  Nestorius 
361,  it  is  defended  by  St.  Cyril  of  Alex- 
andria 361  366,  opposed  first,  but 
afterwards  accepted  by  Theodoret  of 
Cyrus  374;  Assumption  of  the  Blessed 
Virgin  according  to  Modestus  of  Jeru- 
salem 566,  according  to  St.  John  of 
Damascus  588. 

Maria  of  Cassobola  30. 

Maria  Magdalena  (?)  :  Gospel  according  to 
Maria  75,  little  Questions  of  Maria  75. 

Marius  of  Avenches  637. 

Marius  Mercator  508  626. 

Marius  Victor  450. 

Marius  Victorinus  410. 

Marriage,  second,  according  to  Tertullian 
186  187;  marriage  and  virginity:  ac- 
cording to  St.  Methodius  of  Olympus 
176,  St.  Ambrose  437,  St.  Jerome  465, 
St.  Augustine  492. 

Martin  of  Bracara  (Braga),  St.  658 — 660. 

Martin  of  Tours,  St.  451  452  608  643  ;  Vitae 
Sancti  Martini  452  608. 

Martyrium  Colbertinum  31. 

Martyrologies,  Anonymous  Syriac  393,  of 
Pseudo-Hieronymus  464  472. 

Martyrs,  Acts  of,  see  Acta  Martyrum. 

Maruthas  of  Maipherkat  394. 

Maternus,  see  Firmicus. 


Matthew,  The  Apostle,  St.,  Acts  of  108. 

Matthew  of  Cracow  632. 

Matthias,  The  Apostle,  St.,  Gospel  of  94 ; 
traditions  of  94. 

Maxentius  548. 

Maximinus  412. 

Maximus,  Anti-Gnostic   118. 

Maximus,  bishop   522. 

Maximus  of  Bostra  165. 

Maximus  Confessor,  St.   123   133   576. 

Maximus  Planudes  633. 

Maximus  of  Turin,   St.  527. 

Melito  of  Sardes  62. 

Memnon  of  Ephesus  369. 

Memorabilia  of  Hegesippus   116. 

Men  an  der  73. 

Mennas  of  Constantinople  564. 

Mercator  508 — 510. 

Mesrop  591   592. 

Methodius  of  Olympus,  St.  175 — 178:  life 
J75>  works  176,  writings  preserved  in 
Greek  176,  Slavonic  versions  177,  lost 
writings   177,  spurious  writings  178. 

Miltiades,  Pope,  St.  225. 

Miltiades,  Apologist  61. 

Minucius  Felix  70 — 72:  the  dialogue  Oc- 
tavius  70,  author  and  time  of  composi- 
tion 71,  the  work  De  fato  72. 

Miro  658. 

Modestus,  Anti-Gnostic  118. 

Modestus  of  Jerusalem  566. 

Monophysitism  522  641. 

Monotheletism  564. 

Montanistic  Literature  85,  Anti-Montanists 
85    123. 

Monum.  Germ.  Hist.  (Auct.  Antiquiss.)  13. 

Moral  Theology,  see  Practical  Theology. 

Moschus,  see  St.  Iohannes  Moschus. 

Moses  of  Chorene  594. 

Moses  of  Chorene  (Pseudo-)  595. 

Muratorian  Fragment   in    114   220. 

Murmellius  632. 

Musaeus  of  Marseilles  606. 

Musanus  118. 

Musonius  131. 

Mutianus  345. 

Naassenes  92. 

Narcissus  of  Jerusalem  126. 

Nebridius  660. 

Nectarius  of  Constantinople  324  347. 

Nemesius  of  Emesa  306. 

Nepos  154. 

Nestorius  361^369;  Nestorianism  361  641. 

Nexocharides,  alias  Xenocharides   104. 

Nicephorus  of  Antioch   562. 

Nicephorus  Callistus  552. 

Nicephorus  of  Constantinople  249. 

Nicetas  of  Aquileia  443. 

Nicetas  of  Dacia  443.  See  Nicetas  of  Re- 

mesiana. 
Nicetas  David  294. 

43* 


6;6 


INDEX. 


Nicetas  of  Nicaea  552. 

Nicetas  of  Remesiana  440  442. 

Nicetas  of  Serrae  (Heraclea)  293   571. 

Nicetius  of  Trier  650. 

Nicholas,  Bishop  of  Methone  543. 

Nicodemus:  Evangelium  Nicodemi  97. 

Nicolaus  73. 

Nicomedians,  Letter  to   125. 

Nilus,  St.  381   382. 

Noetus  of  Smyrna  213. 

Nomocanones  571   572- 

Nonnus,  Abbas  293. 

Nonnus  of  Panopolis  244. 

Notitia  Provinciarum  et  Civitatum  Africae 
615. 

Notitiae  Episcopatuum  557. 

Notker  Labeo  632. 

Novatian  220 — 222  :  life  220,  writings  221, 
De  Trinitate,  De  cibis  iudaicis  221, 
Tractatus  de  libris  St.  Scripturarum  222, 
Novatiar.ism   191    197  220  425. 

Obitus  Baebiani,  poem  449. 

Ode  to  Sophia  107. 

Oecumenius  of  Tricca  52°- 

Olympiodorus  of  Alexandria  569   570. 

Olympius  430. 

Vp-oouacog  (u  uwg,  rut  -izarpi):  rallying  cry 
of  orthodox  Christians  in  the  Arian 
controversy  239  240,  abandoned  by 
Pope  Liberius  264,  is  not  found  in  Alex- 
ander of  Alexandria  263,  nor  in  Eu- 
sebius  of  Caesarea  245,  nor  in  St.  Cyril 
of  Jerusalem  271. 

Optatus  of  Mileve,  St.   125  426  427. 

Opus  imperfectum  in  Matthaeum  337. 

Oratio  ad  Gentiles  53. 

Orders,  Rules  of  265  278   599. 

Orientius  451. 

Origen :  life  and  labors  136 — 153,  writ- 
ings: biblico-exegetical  140,  general 
view  of  his  biblical  works  146,  writings 
against  pagans  and  Jews  147,  against 
heretics  148,  dogmatic  writings  148, 
works  of  edification  and  homilies  149, 
letters  150,  dubious  writings  151,  philo- 
sophico-theological  views  151;  Trac- 
tatus Origenis  de  libris  SS.  Scriptura- 
rum 222. 

Origenistic  controversies  127  152  159  236 
311  313  453  458  465  530  549  551  558. 

Original  Sin :  denied  by  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia  321,  and  the  Pelagians  486 
498,  doctrine  of  St.  Augustine  498  ff., 
controversy  between  St.  Augustine  and 
Julianus  of  Eclanum,  on  the  doctrine  of 
St.  Chrysostom  339. 

Orosius  510  511. 

Orsisius  (Orsiesius)   266. 

Pacatus  449. 

Pachomius,  St.,  abbot  265. 


Pachomius,  bishop    160. 

Pacian  of  Barcelona,  St.  425. 

Paedagogus  of  Clement  of  Alexandria 
129. 

Palladius   133. 

PalJadius  348  381. 

Pamphilus  of  Caesarea   127    166. 

Pantaenus   127    128   133. 

Papa  of  Seleucia  387. 

Papias  of  Hierapolis  43. 

Pappus  596. 

Papyrus  Brucianus  75   76. 

Papyrus-fragment  90. 

Parmenian  426. 

Paschal  Chronicle  555. 

Paschasius  Diaconus  600  602. 

Paschasius,  a  monk  659. 

Passiones  Martyrum,  see  Acta  Martyrum. 

Pastor  (of  Hermas),  see  Shepherd  of  Her- 
mas. 

Pastor,  bishop  430. 

Pastoral  Theology,  see  Practical  Theology. 

Patrick,   St.  631. 

Patripassianism :  its  defender  Praxeas  op- 
posed by  Tertullian  185,  Noetus  of 
Smyrna  opposed  by  St.  Hippolytus  213, 
defended  by  Commodianus  227.  See  Sa- 
bellianism. 

Patristics  5. 

Patrologiae  Cursus  Completus   12. 

Patrology  :  concept  and  scope  I  —  7,  history 
and  literature  7 — 10. 

Paul,  The  Apostle,  St.,  Apocryphal  Epistles 
of:  the  Epistle  to  the  Laodiceans  no,  cor- 
respondence with  Corinthians  in,  with 
Seneca  112,  Apocalypse  of  Paul  114, 
Visio  S.  Pauli  115,  Ascension  of  St. 
Paul  115,  Pauli  Praedicatio  98,  Acta 
Pauli  100,  Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecla 
102,  Acts  of  Peter  and  Paul   101. 

Paul  of  Samosata   165. 

Paulinus  of  Aquileia,   St.   283  491. 

Paulinus  of  Biterrae  (Beziers)  450. 

Paulinus  of  Burdigala   (Bordeaux)   602. 

Paulinus  of  Milan  514. 

Paulinus  of  Nola,  St.  447 — 449. 

Paulinus  of  Pella  608. 

Paulinus  of  Petricordia  608. 

Paulus  of  Callinicus  547. 

Paulus  Diaconus  656. 

Paulus  of  Elusa  558. 

Paulus  of  Emesa  370. 

Paulus  of  Nisibis  642. 

Paulus  Orosius  510. 

Paulus  of  Pannonia  604. 

Paulus  of  Samosata   165. 

Paulus  Silentiarius  543. 

Paulus  of  Telia   139. 

Pelagius  I.,  pope  657. 

Pelagius  II.,  pope  657. 

Pelagius,  heresiarch  485  491  504  642; 
Pelagianism  321    399    495   481;    litera- 


INDEX. 


677 


ture  on  504  514;  Semipelagianism  512 
515;  chiefly  in  Southern  Gaul  398. 

Penance ,  post-baptismal  means  of  salva- 
tion :  in  Hermas  39,  in  Tertullian  (Catholic 
period)  186,  in  St.  Pacianus  429; 
Canonical  Penance,  penitential  stations 
in  Hermas  39 ;  Pope  Callistus  remits  ri- 
gor of  penitential  discipline ,  opposi- 
tion of  Hippolytus  210,  of  Tertullian 
(Montanist  period)  186;  treatment  of  the 
Lapsi   191    197  220. 

Peregrinatio  ad  Loca  Sancta  424. 

Peregrinus  428. 

Perpetua  and  Felicitas   232. 

Perpetuus  of  Tours  608. 

Peter,  the  Apostle,  St. :  Gospel  93 ,  Apo- 
calypse 113;  Apocalypsis  Petri  per  de- 
mentem 114,  Praedicatio  Petri  97,  Circu- 
itus  (missionary  preaching)  Petri  82 
83,  Preaching  of  Simon  Magus  in  the 
City  of  Rome  99,  Iudicium  secundum 
Petrum  161,  Acts  of  Peter  98,  Actus 
Petri  99,    Acts  of  Peter  and  Paul   101. 

Petronius  of  Bologna  418. 

Petronius  of  Verona  418. 

Petrus  Chrysologus,    St.   3   526. 

Petrus  Damiani,    St.   3   283. 

Petrus  Diaconus   548. 

Petrus  Mongus  534. 

Petrus,  poet  607. 

Petrus  of  Alexandria   159. 

Petrus  II.  of  Alexandria  255. 

Petrus  of  Laodicea  570. 

Petrus  Lombardus  584. 

Petrus  of  Sebaste  295   296  297: 

Phantasiastae   533. 

Philastrius  (Philaster),   St.  430. 

Phileas  of  Thmuis   160. 

Philip,  The  Apostle,  St. :  Gospel  94,  Acts 
108,  Syriac  Legend  of  Philip   108. 

Philippus,   Gnostic  79. 

Philippus  of  Gortynia   118. 

Philippus,  Presbyter  471. 

Philippus  Sidetes  117   238  377  378. 

Philo  of  Alexandria  398  431   436  442. 

Philo  of  Carpasia  313   315. 

Philocalus,  calligrapher  421   423. 

Philoponus   544. 

Philosophumena,  see  Hippolytus  209  212. 

Philostorgius  239  378. 

Philostratus  249. 

Phoebadius  of  Agen  415. 

Photinus  of  Sirmium  242. 

Photius   124   134. 

Pierius  of  Alexandria   158. 

Pilate-Literature,    origins  of  97. 

Pilgrim-Narratives  424. 

Pinytus  of  Cnossus   125. 

Pionius  233. 

Pisides   566   567. 

Pistis  Sophia  75. 

Plinius  607. 


Poema  coniugis  ad  uxorem  514. 

Poetry,  Ecclesiastical,  origins  of:  in  Cle- 
ment of  Alexandria  129,  St.  Hippolytus  (?) 
219,  St.  Methodius  176,  earliest  traces  of 
Latin  Christian  poetry  in  Commodian 
178  225  226,  principal  Christian  poets 
of  the  Greeks  (second  patristic  period) 
238  529  531,  of  the  Latins  400  599, 
of  the  Syrians  389  390  393  394,  the 
hymn  as  expression  of  the  new  Christian 
lyrical  temperament  400  526,  the  new 
rhythmic  form  of  poetry  among  the 
Greeks  238  562,  among  the  Latins  400, 
probably  borrowed  from  the  Syriac 
Church  390. 

Polemical  poems,  Two  (Apollinarist)  422. 

Polemius,  bishop  659. 

Polemon  alias  Polemius  (Apollinarist)  244. 

Polybius  313. 

Polycarp  of  Smyrna,  St.  35 — 38 :  his  life 
35,  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  36,  Latin 
fragments  37;  Martyrium  Polycarpi  229. 

Polychronius  322. 

Polycrates  of  Ephesus   126. 

Pomerius,  see  Julianus  Pomerius. 

Pomponius  427. 

Pontianus,  pope,  St.   223. 

Pontianus,  bishop  639. 

Pontius  Paulinus  447 — 449,  cp.  400. 

Porphyrius  of  Gaza  347. 

Porphyrius,  Neoplatonist  178  243  248  376. 

Possidius  of  Calama  475  478. 

Potamius  of  Olisipo  (Lisbon)  412. 

Practical  Theology,  the  moral  discipline 
of  Christianity,  as  distinct  from  its  teach- 
ings :  first  set  forth  by  St.  Ambrose  398 
400  436,  other  ascetico-moral-writings 
of  the  second  patristic  period  238  400, 
of  the  third  period  551  599;  pastoral 
.Theology  systematized  by  St.  Gregory  the 
Great  599.  See  Homiletics  and  Cateche- 
tics,  Collections  of  Ecclesiastical  laws, 
of  Canons,  Rules  of  Orders. 

Praedestinatus   123   124  598  599  604. 

Praxeas   184. 

Predestination,  doctrine  of:  in  St.  Augu- 
stine 501,  in  St.  Prosper  of  Aquitaine 
512,  in  St.  Fulgentius  of  Ruspe  617  618. 

Predestinationism ,  defended  by  Lucidus 
598  600,  by  Pseudo-Augustinus   604. 

Pre-Existence  of  the  Soul,  see  Soul. 

Primacy  of  the  Roman  Church  121.  See 
Church. 

Primasius  of  Hadrumetum  642. 

Priscillian  428;  Priscillianism  427,  its  de- 
fenders and  opponents  429. 

Proba  420. 

Proclus,  Montanist  85   124. 

Proclus,  patriarch  369. 

Proclus,  poet  607. 

Procopius  of  Gaza  541  —  543. 

Prosper  (?)  of  Africa  514. 


67S 


INDEX. 


Prosper  of  Aquitaine,  St.  511 — 514-     See 

Tiro  Prosper. 
Prosper  Augustanus  514. 
Protevangelium  Jacobi  87« 
Protrepticus  of  Clement  of  Alexandria  129. 
Prudentius  Clemens  444 — 447. 
Psenosiris,  Letter  of  162. 
Pseudo-Beda  632. 

Pseudo-Callisthenes,  see  Callisthenes. 
Pseudo-Dionysius  Areopagita,  see  Dionysius 

Areopagita. 
Ptolemaeus  77. 

Quadratus  46. 
Quicumque  vult  255  261. 

Rabbulas  of  Edessa  395  396. 

Recognitions,  Clementine,  see  Clementinae. 

Religious  Colloquy  at  court  of  the  Sassa- 
nids  574. 

Remigius  of  Rheims,  St.  612. 

Resurrection  of  the  body :  according  to 
Athenagoras  64,  St.  Methodius  of  Olym- 
pus  1 76,  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  302. 

Reticius  of  Autun  228. 

Rhodon  61    117   123. 

Romanus  Melodos,   St.   562   563. 

Rufinus  512. 

Rufinus  of  Aquileia  82   141   247  250. 

Ruricius  of  Limoges  602  603. 

Rusticus  of  Bordeaux  519. 

Rusticus  (Rusticius)  Diaconus  640. 

Rusticus  Helpidius  (Elpidius),  see  Helpi- 
dius. 

Rusticus  of  Narbonne  519. 

Rusticus  Presbyter  519. 

Sabellius  242;  Sabellianism  241.  See  Patri- 
passianism 

Sabinus  of  Heraclea  238  241   378  379. 

Sacramentarium :  Bobbiense  1 1 1 ,  Leonianum 
525  526,  Gelasianum  621  622,  Grego- 
rianum  654  656. 

Sacraments ,  their  objective  efficacy  de- 
fended against  the  Donatists:  by  St.  Op- 
tatus  of  Mileve  427,  by  St.  Augustine 
483.  See  Baptism,  Eucharist,  Marriage. 

Saints,  Lives  of,  see  Vitae  Sanctorum. 

Sallustius  452. 

Salonius  of  Geneva  519. 

Salvianus  of  Marseilles  605   606. 

Sampsaei  81. 

Satornilus  73. 

Sayings  of  Jesus,  see  Logia  Iesu,  Agrapha. 

Schools  and  Tendencies:  theological  235 
398 ,  Alexandrine  Catechetical  School 
127,  Neo- Alexandrine  School  235,  Anti- 
ochene  Exegetical  School  235,  School 
of  Caesarea  127,  of  Edessa  384,  of 
Southern  Gaul  398. 

Scripture,  Sacred,  see  Biblical  Theology, 
Canon,  Testament. 


Secundinus,  poet  613. 

Secundinus,  Manichaean  483. 

Sedatus  of  Biterrae  650. 

Sedulius  450. 

Semipelagianism  512  515;  chiefly  in 
Southern  Gaul  398. 

Seneca  658. 

Seneca,  correspondence  of  Paul  and  Se- 
neca 112. 

Serapion  of  Alexandria  159. 

Serapion  of  Antioch  93   126. 

Serapion,  St.,  of  Thmuis  269  270. 

Sergius  of  Constantinople  564. 

Seta   563. 

Severianus,  poet  607. 

Severianus  of  Gabala  527. 

Severus  of  Antioch  547;  Severiani  of 
Phartolatrae  547. 

Severus  of  Malaga  664. 

Severus  of  Minorca  511. 

Severus  Sanctus  Endelechius,  see  Ende- 
lechius. 

Sextus,  Anti-Gnostic  118. 

Sigebert  of  Gemblaux  8  624. 

Simeon,  Bishop  of  Betharsam  552. 

Simeon,   «the  new  theologian»   585. 

Simeon  Stylites,  St.   (Junior)   562. 

Simplicianus,   St.  444  455. 

Simplicius,  Pope,  St.  620  621. 

Siricius,  Pope,  St.  444. 

Sisinnius  of  Constantinople  54. 

Sixtus  IL,  Pope,  St.  224,  cp.   199. 

Sixtus  III.,  Pope,  St.   526. 

Socrates  378. 

Sophia  IeSu  Christi  75. 

Sophia  Valentini  77. 

Sophronius,  friend  of  St.  Jerome  274. 

Sophronius  of  Jerusalem,  St.560561  564  565. 

Soranus  of  Ephesus    188. 

Soter,  Pope,  St.  123   124. 

Soul:  corporeal  according  to  Tertullian 
188,  and  Faustus  of  Riez  601,  incor- 
poreal according  to  Claudianus  Mamer- 
tus  601  603;  pre-existence  of,  according 
to  Origen  152,  Didymus  the  Blind  307, 
Evagrius  Ponticus  308  310;  opposed  by 
Peter  of  Alexandria  159,  St.  Methodius  of 
Olympus  178,  and  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa 
302,  and  St.  Barsanuphius  551  (see 
Origenistic  controversies);  Tertullian  de- 
fends Generationism  or  Traducianism 
188,  St.  Chrysostom  defends  Creationism 
339,  St.  Augustine  is  wavering  499 ; 
the  «dormitio»  of  the  soul  after  death 
sustained  by  Aphraates,  opposed  by  Eu- 
stratius  of  Constantinople   186  561. 

Sozomen  378. 
Statius  607. 

Stephanus,  Revelatio  Stephani   116. 
Stephanus  I.,  Pope,  St.  224,  cp.  191  198. 
Stephanus  V.,  Pope  657. 
Stephanus  Bar  Sudaili   541. 


INDEX. 


679 


Stephanus  of  Bostra   581. 
Stephanus  of  Dora  565. 
Stephanus  of  Gobarus   117    544. 
Stephanus  Presbyter  112. 
Stephen,  Bishop  of  Siuniq  567. 
Stromata  of  Clement  of  Alexandria   129. 
Subordinationism,  in  Trinitarian  doctrine: 

accepted  by  Origen   152,    Dionysius   of 

Alexandria  155,    Tertullian  185,    Arno- 

bius  202. 
Sulpicius  Severus,  St.  451. 
Syagrius  430. 
Sylvia,   St.  424. 
Symbolum  Apostolorum   17  18;  Äthan  asia- 

num  255  261.    See  Quicumque. 
Symmachus,  City-Prefect  445  475  607. 
Symmachus,  Ebionite  81. 
Symmachus,  Pope,   St.  621. 
Symphosius  208. 
Synesius    of   Cyrene  358 — 359:    life   358, 

writings  359,  literature  359. 
Syriac  writers  384. 

Tacitus  452. 

Tatian,  the  Assyrian  57 — 61  :  life  57,  Apo- 
logy 58,  Diatessaron  59,  lost  writ- 
ings 60. 

Te  Deum  440  442  443. 

Tertullian  179  — 190:  life  179,  works  179, 
apologetic  182,  dogmatico-polemical  184, 
ascetico-practical  186,  De  anima  and 
De  pallio  188,  lost  writings  189,  spu- 
rious writings   190. 

Testament,  Old  and  New :  according  to  the 
Epistle  of  Barnabas  23,  transitory  cha- 
racter of  the  Law  of  Moses  according 
to  the  Apologists  45,  St.  Justin  Martyr  52, 
Tertullian  183,  St.  Cyprian  196,  the  Old 
Testament  a  revelation  of  the  one  true 
God  according  to  St.  Augustine  482. 

Testament  of  Our  Lord  355   356. 

Tetrapla  140. 

Thaddaeus,  Legend  of  109. 

Thalassius,  abbot  573. 

Thalassius,  monk  369. 

Theban  Legion  518. 

Thecla :  Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecla  102, 
Vitae  S.  Theclae   532. 

Themison  85. 

Theoctistus  of  Caesarea   164. 

Theodoret  of  Cyrus  370 — 376 :  life  370, 
works:  apologetical  371,  dogmatico-pole- 
mical 372,  exegetical  373,  historical  373, 
•  homilies  and  letters  374,  Christology 
374,  spurious  writings  375,  complete 
editions,  translations,  recensions  of  se- 
parate works  375  376 ,  literature  on 
376. 

Theodorus,  abbot  266. 

Theodorus,  bishop   160. 

Theodorus  of  Heraclea  240. 

Theodorus  Lector  552. 


Theodorus  of  Mopsuestia  318 — 322:  life 
318,  exegetical  writings,  hermeneu- 
tical  principles,  limitation  of  the  Canon 
319 — 320,  other  writings  320,  Christo- 
logy 320  361,  doctrine  on  grace  320, 
editions  321,  works  on  Theodorus  322. 

Theodorus  of  Petra  558. 

Theodorus  Prodromus   569. 

Theodorus  of  Scythopolis  551. 

Theodosians   575. 

Theodosius,  Archidiaconus  638. 

Theodosius  of  Jerusalem  370. 

Theodotus  of  Ancyra  369. 

Theodotus,  Valentinian   77    130. 

Theognostus  156. 

Theon  596. 

Theonas  of  Alexandria   158. 

Theopaschite  controversy  530  547. 

Theophanes  Confessor  552. 

Theophilus  of  Alexandria  311  315  325 
339  36o. 

Theophilus  of  Antioch  65  —  67:  life  65, 
Libri  Tres  ad  Autolycum  66,  lost  writ- 
ings 67    116. 

Theophilus,  bishop   165. 

Theophilus  of  Caesarea   126. 

Theophorus,  see  Ignatius  of  Antioch. 

Theotecnus   165. 

Thomas,  The  Apostle,  St. :  Gospel  94,  Acts 
106,  later  recensions  of  the  Thomas- 
Legend   107,  Revelatio  Thomae   116. 

Thomas  Aquinas,    St.   367  632. 

Three  Chapters  controversy  530  549  598 
637  638—641. 

Tiberianus  429. 

Tichonius  427  471. 

Timocles  563. 

Timotheus,  Dialogus  Timothei  et  Aquilae 

49- 

Timotheus  Aelurus  532. 

Timotheus  of  Alexandria  255  381. 

Timotheus  of  Berytus  238  245  377  378. 

Timotheus  of  Constantinople   575. 

Tiro  Prosper,  St.  511  —  514. 

Titus  of  Bostra  270  271. 

Tradition,  Oral,  source  of  faith  :  according 
to  Papias  43,  St.  Irenaeus  120,  St.  Ba- 
sil the  Great  280,  Vincent  of  Lerins 
521.    See  Faith. 

Trinity,  The  Holy :  term  first  used  by 
Theophilus  of  Antioch  66,  doctrine  of 
Trinity  in  Athenagoras  65,  Tertullian 
185,  St.  Hippolytus  210,  St.  Athanasius 
259,  St.  Basil  the  Great  281,  St.  Gre- 
gory of  Nazianzus  291,  St.  Gregory  of 
Nyssa  300,  Didymus  the  Blind  308.  See 
Christology,  Holy  Ghost,  Subordina- 
tionism. 

Tritheists  544,   cp.  530. 

Trithemius  8. 

Trypho   153. 

Trypho,  The  Jew,  see  St.  Justin  Martyr. 


68o 


INDEX. 


Turibius  of  Astorga,  St.  430. 
Tychonius,  see  Tichonius. 
Tyrannius  Rufinus  453. 

Ulfilas  412. 
Uranius  449. 


Valentinus,  Apollinarist  244. 

Valentinus,  Gnostic  76. 

Valerianus  of  Cemele  522. 

Varro  480. 

Venantius  Fortunatus  647 — 650,  cp.   599. 

Veranus  of  Vence  519. 

Verecundus  of  Junca  641. 

Versus  ad  gratiam  Domini  421. 

Victor  L,  Pope,  St.  77    119   122    125. 

Victor  of  Antioch  570. 

Victor  of  Capua  628. 

Victor  of  Cartenna  615. 

Victor  of  Tunnuna  637  640  662. 

Victor  of  Vita  614  615. 

Victor,  see  Marius  Victor. 

Victoricius  of  Rouen  444. 

Victorinus  of  Pettau  227,  cp.   190. 

Victorinus,  see  Marius  Victorinus. 

Victorius  (Victurius)   514. 

Vigilius,  Pope  639. 

Vigilius  of  Tapsus  430  615  616. 

Vigilius  of  Trent  444. 

Vincent  of  Lerinum  520. 

Vincentius  Presbyter  604. 

Virgil  199  420  433  607  610;  Centones 
Virgiliani  420. 

Virgilius,  The  supposed  638. 

Vita  Barlaam  et  Joasaph  587   589. 

Vita  Constantini  M.  246   251. 

Vitae  Sanctorum:  St.  Albini  649,  St.  Alex- 
andri  396,  St.  Ambrosii  513,  St.  An- 
tonii  monachi  Aegypt.  258  262  264, 
St.  Antonii  monachi  Lerin.  623,  St.  Ar- 
temii  588  589,  St.  Augustini  475  478, 
St.  Auxentii  563,  St.  Aviti  610,  St.  Bene- 
dict 653  656,  St.Caesarii6n  6i2,St.Cy- 
priani  190  191,  St.  Cyriaci  558  559,  St. 
Cyri  et  Ioannis  560,  St.  Epiphanii  episc. 
Constant  313,  St.  Epiphanii  episc.  Ti- 
cin. 623,  St.  Eugeniae  454,  St.  Eusebii 


Alex.  370,  St.  Euthymii  558  559,  St.  Eu- 
tychii  patr.  561,  St.  Fulgentii  616  617, 
St.  Gerasimi  559,  St.  Germani  649, 
St.  Gregorii  Agrigent.  561,  St.  Gregorii 
Armeni  590,  St.  Gregorii  Magni  papae 
656,  St.  Gregorii  Thaumat.  170  171 
300,  St.  Hilarii  Arelat.  520,  St.  Hilarii 
Pictav.  649 ,  St.  Hilarionis  464  472, 
St.  Honorati  Arelat.  520,  St.  Hypatii 
379,  St.  Ioannis  Chrysostomi  348  562, 
St.  Ioannis  Climaci  572573,  St.  Ioannis 
Damasceni  568  583,  St.  Ioannis  Eleemo- 
synarii  560  561,  St.  Ioannis  Moschi  560, 
St.  Ioannis  Silentiarii  558  559,  St.  Isaiae 
abbatis  553,  St.  Iuliani  645,  St.  Macri- 
nae  300,  St.  Malchi  464  472,  St.  Mar- 
celli  649 ,  St.  Mariae  Aegypt.  560, 
St.  Martini  Turon.  452  608  645,  St. 
Mauricii  et  soc.  518,  St.  Maximi  conf. 
576,  St.  Mesropi  592,  St.  Pachomii  265, 
St.  Pamphili  166  245.  St.  Parthenii  240, 
St.  Paterni  649,  St.  Pauli  monachi  464 
472,  St.  Petri  Iberis  541,  St.  Porphyrii 
Gaz.  347,  St.  Radegundis  649,  St.  Rhi- 
psimes  et  soc.  591,  St.  Sabae  546  558 
559,  St.  Severini  626,  St.  Silvestri  595, 
St.  Simeonis  Sali  561,  St.  Simeonis  Sty- 
litae  jun.  562,  St.  Spiridionis  561, 
St.  Theclae  532,  St.  Theodosii  558  559, 
St.  Theognii  558  559,  Liber  vitae  Pa- 
trum  645.     See  Acta  Martyrum. 

Vitalis  of  Antioch  244. 

Voconius  615. 

Vulgate,  Latin  459—463  470  490  491; 
Codex  Fuldensis  60. 

William  of  St.  Theodoric  435. 

Xenocharides,  alias  Nexocharides   104. 

Zacharias,  Apocrypha   116. 
Zacharias,  Pope  656. 
Zacharias  of  Jerusalem   566. 
Zacharias  Rhetor  552. 
Zeno  of  Verona  418. 
Zephyrinus,  Pope,   St.    124    125 
Zonaras    172. 
Zosimus,  Pope,   St.   515. 


f/OZ/Z      833 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


